i 
j 

; 

1 

■ 

1 

: 
■ 

^<yOdllV3JO'f^ 


^TJlJONVSOl^       %a3AINn3Wv 


^OJITYDJO"^ 


^<i/ojnv3jo>^ 


OFCAIIFOR^^ 


&A8VJjaill^ 


,^WE•UNIVERS/A 


v^lOSANCElfj> 


^.OFCAlIFOff^ 


^OFCAIIFOI?^ 


■^f^uoNVSoi^      "^aJMNd-j^v        ^CAiiviiaii#'      ^OAHvaaii# 


slOSANCElfj> 


/'^aaAiNOJWV 


^lUBRARY^/- 


^^OJIWDJO^ 


-s;^£UBRARYG<;^ 


^^mwm^sP 


\WEUNIVER5-//, 


o 
^i7l30NVS01^ 


^lOSANCElfj-^ 
o 


^a^AINflJWV* 


slOSANCElOi, 


'mmM"!^ 


^OFCALIFOff^       XcOFCALIFOMik 


\ME  UNIVERS/A 


^<?AHviiaiii^     '^6'AavjiaiH^       ^tjuonvsoi^ 


O 


^ajAiNnjwv" 


M-UBRARYOc.  .^WEUNIVERS-ZA        ^lOSANCElfjv 


^-tfOJIlVDJO'^  <rii33NVS01^       "^/^ajAINO  3UV 


^HIBRARYQ^^       ^vSUIBRARYQ^ 


^.{/OdllVDJO'i^       '^.!/OJIlV>JO'f^ 


;OFCAlIF0Mj|^ 


&Aavaan-^^ 


^WEUNIVER% 


vj,lOSANCElfj> 

O 


^^OFCAIIFO%        .^;OF•CAllFOff^ 


^>rii30NVS0i^     "^/^ajAiNflJvw^       ^^<?AavaaiH^'^     "^aAavaaii-^ 


'Aa3AINn3WV 


^lllBRARYQ/- 


-j^tUBRARYQr 


^d/OJIWDJO'^ 


^.!/0JllV3J0>^ 


o      u_ 


s:lOSANCElfj> 


5s 


^OFCAllFOfiV 


,^;OFCAllF0%. 


\\^EUNIVERJ//,  vvWSANCElfx^ 


T"        O 

-n         <->  


S         O. 


^<!/0jnV3J0'»^ 


i-n  S= 


^.tfojnvojo^ 


<rii30Nvsor^ 


^lOSANCElfj> 


^OFCALIFO/?^      ^OFCAIIFO/?^ 


^WEUNIVERS/A 


^rjijoNvsoi^ 


LiDrtARYQ/: 


^^ILIBRARYQc;^ 


^<!/0JnV3JO'^ 


^.OFCAtlFOff^ 


^WEUNIVERS/A 


^\^EUNIVERy//v 


^lOSANCEia^ 


vvlOSANCElfj-^, 

o 


^TiiaOKV-SOl^         %il3AINn3WV 


^IIIBRARY6?/C 


"^/JaaAINO  3\\V^  ^<!/0dllV3J0^ 


.^^OFCAIIFO%, 
^*     ^ — ^  ^ 

on 


'^omm[^ 


vvlOS  ANCElfj>  • 
o 


%a3AINn3WV 


vKilOSANCElfx^ 


lONVSOl^         ^/^a3AINn3WV 


^lllBRARYQr 


^UIBRARY<9/^      ^^, ..^,.^ 


^<i/0JnV3J0'^ 


^OFCALIFO/?^ 


^<!/0JnV3J0'^ 


\WEUNIVERS/A 


^OFCAllFOfiV  «^^\^E  UNIVER57^ 


=3 

<rii]ONVsoi^ 


JBRARYQr 


^IIIBRARYO^ 
•^  1    ir^  ^ 


^\\EUNIVER%        ^lOSANCElfj^ 


<rii]3NVS01^       %a3AINfl3UV' 


,\\^EUfJIVERSyA 


^mmms-^ 


^^iLIBRARYCk, 


^^mmyi^"^ 


^OFCAIIFOP^ 


>??ji}<VHfln;^ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/collectionofpapeOOwebsiala 


COLLECTION    OF    PAPERS 


ON 


POLITICAL,   LITERARY 


AND 


MORAL    SUBJECTS. 


BY   NOAH   WEBSTER,   LL.  D. 


:»: 


;/;^:;»! 


^^J-' 


•  ••*'j«*     ••       *  *  f  ■ft  *"/>*  ^ 


NEW   YORK: 

WEBSTER  &  CLARK,  130  Fulton  Street. 

Boston — Tappan  &,  Dennett. 

Philadelphia— Smith  &  Peck. 

1843. 


■^v     ..4. 


W5^ 


fU 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  observations  on  the  Revolution  in  France,  in  this  collection, 
were  written  and  published  in  the  year  1794,  during  the  heat  of  the 
revolution,  when  I  was  frequently  receiving  fresh  accounts  of  the  fero- 
cities of  the  violent  reformers,  exhibiting  the  appalling  effects  of  popu- 
lar factions. 

The  Essay  on  the  Rights  of  Neutral  Nations,  owes  its  origin  to  the 
enormous  outrages  on  the  commerce  of  the  United  States,  committed 
by  the  belligerent  powers,  during  the  French  Revolution.  It  was  pub- 
lished in  New  York  in  the  year  1802.  The  principal  points  in  it  have 
a  bearing  on  the  Right  of  Search ;  a  subject  now  agitated  in  this  coun- 
try, as  it  is  in  Great  Britain  and  in  France.  An  eminent  jurist  in  Phil- 
adelphia, considers  this  essay  as  one  of  the  best,  if  not  the  best  work 
that  has  appeared  on  this  subject.  He  mentions  particularly  the  ground 
on  which  I  have  placed  the  jurisdiction  of  nations  on  the  ocean.  In 
the  papers  signed  Curtius,  the  treaty  of  1795  is  vindicated  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  law  of  nations,  so  called.  In  the  essay  on  neutral  rights, 
I  give  my  own  opinions. 

A  particular  motive  I  have  in  this  publication,  is  to  record  my  testi- 
mony against  the  audacious  practice  of  publishing  misrepresentations, 
falsehood,  and  calumny,  for  party  purposes.  By  this  practice,  the  most 
virtuous,  meritorious,  and  patriotic  statesmen  are  vilified,  and  their  in- 
fluence impaired  or  destroyed ;  the  harmony  of  our  public  councils  is 
disturbed ;  and  the  co-operation  of  our  citizens,  in  measures  indispen- 
sable to  our  national  prosperity,  is  prevented.  In  short,  this  practice 
frustrates  the  great  object  of  a  republican  government,  by  subjecting 
our  citizens  to  the  sway  of  some  petty  oligarchy,  changeable  every 
fourth  year.  I  have  been  a  witness  to  the  evil  effects  of  this  licentious- 
ness, from  the  formation  of  the  government,  and  I  question  whether 
any  other  age  or  nation  has  furnished  an  example  of  public  calumnies 
of  equal  extent,  and  attended  with  equal  injury  to  the  morals  and  inter- 
ests of  the  community. 


4'!^564 


CONTENTS 


Page. 

Chap.  I.  Revolution  in  France, 1 

II.  The  Rights  of  Neutral  Nations,      ....  42 

III.  Dissertation  on  the  supposed  change  of  temperature  in 

modern  winters,     .         .         .         .         .         .         .119 

IV.  Origin  of  the  first  Bank  in  the  United  States,           .  163 
V.  Letter  from  General  Washington,  respecting  the  last 

campaign  in  the  Revolution,    .....  166 
VI.  Correspondence  with  Mr.  Madison,  respecting  the  origin 

of  the  present  constitution,          ....  168 

Vn.  Origin  of  the  Copy-right  Laws  of  the  United  States,  173 

VIII.  Vindication  of  the  Treaty  with  Great  Britain,  in  1795,  179 

IX.  Origin  of  Amherst  College  in  Massachusetts,       .         .  225 

X.  Address  on  Agriculture, 255 

XI.  A  Letter  to  the  Honorable  Daniel  Webster,        .         .  269 
XII.  Answer  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  Massachu- 
setts, to  the  Governor's  Address,        .         .         .  286 

XIII.  A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Samuel  Lee,  D.  D.,  Professor  of 

Arabic  in  the  University  of  Cambridge,  .         .         .  289 

XIV.  Reply  to  a  letter  of  David  Mc  Clure,  Esq.,     .         .  291 
XV.  Letter  to  a  young  gentleman  commencing  his  education,  295 

XVI.  Form  of  association  for  young  men,  ....  305 

XVII.  Modes  of  teaching  the  English  language,        .         .  307 

XVIII.  Origin  of  the  Hartford  Convention  in  1814,         .         .311 

XIX.  Brief  History  of  Political  Parties,           ...  316 

XX.  State  of  English  Philology,  or  results  of  many  years' 

researches, 338 


BRITISH  NOTICES  OF  WEBSTER'S  DICTIONARY. 

A  new  edition  of  Webster's  American  Dictionary  is  now  published  by 
the  author,  in  two  volumes,  large  octavo,  with  many  improvements  on 
the  former  editions,  and  containing  eighty-eight  thousand  words,  being 
from  tioenty-jive  to  forty  thousand  more  than  the  English  dictionaries 
now  used  in  the  United  States.  Students  who  have  long  wished  for  an 
edition  of  the  work  at  a  less  price  than  the  quarto,  may  now  be  sup- 
plied. 

EXTRACTS  FROM  BRITISH  NOTICES    OF    THE  QUARTO. 

In  the  Liverpool  Mercury  of  May  last,  the  Rev.  James  Martineau 
writes  that  "  by  far  the  best  English  Dictionary,  indeed  the  only  one 
to  which  appeal  can  now  be  made  as  an  authority,  is  Webster's,  an 
American  publication." 

The  British  Journal  says  :  "  This  dictionary  is  decidedly  one  of  the 
most  valuable  and  important  works  at  present  in  the  course  of  publica- 
tion.    No  library  can  be  considered  complete  without  it." 

The  Aberdeen  Journal  says :  "  This  is  the  most  copious,  accurate, 
and  scientific  dictionary  of  our  language  which  has  hitherto  been  com- 
pleted." 

The  Aberdeen  Observer  remarks,  "  that  this  publication  will  go  far 
to  remove  the  unjust  prejudices  which  prevail  in  this  country  against 
the  literature  of  the  Americans." 

Professor  Jameson,  of  Edinburgh,  has  remarked,  that  "  the  Amer- 
ican Dictionary  of  Dr.  Webster  is  as  great  an  improvement  on  John- 
son's Dictionary  as  the  latter  was  on  those  of  his  predecessors." 

The  Cambridge  Press  affirms,  that  "  this  work,  when  as  well  known 
in  Britain  as  in  America,  will  supersede  every  other  book  in  the  same 
department  of  letters." 

A  writer  in  the  Mechanics''  Magazine  observes  that,  "  In  this  unrival- 
ed work,  all  technical  terms  are  explained  in  so  satisfactory  and  com- 
plete a  manner,  as  to  constitute  an  Encyclopedia  in  miniature.  The 
author  has  wisely  rejected  that  prodigality  of  quotation  which  increases 
the  price  and  cumbrousness  of  Todd's  Johnson,  without  a  proportionate 
increase  of  the  utility  of  the  work." 

The  Aberdeen  Chronicle  declares  this  dictionary  to  be  "  the  nearest 
approximation  to  a  perfect  dictionary  of  the  language  which  we  have 
ever  seen." 

The  American  commendations  of  this  dictionary,  and  of  Dr.  Web- 
ster's other  school-books,  are  too  numerous  to  be  here  inserted. 

A  large  portion  of  the  members  of  Congress,  in  1831,  recommended 
this  dictionary  to  be  used  as  a  standard  work,  in  connection  with  the 
author's  elementary  books. 

The  instructors  in  colleges,  and  other  eminent  scholars,  have  com- 
mended these  works,  alledging  it  to  be  desirable  that  children  in  this 
country  should  be  instructed  in  one  form  of  orthography  and  pronun- 
ciation.   They  say  that  "  Dr.  Webster's  Dictionaries  and  Spelling  Book 

A 


constitute  a  series  of  books  for  instruction  which,  we  hope,  will  find  their 
way  into  all  our  schools." 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  novelty  and  accuracy  of  definitions  in  the 
American  Dictionary  have  induced  some  persons  to  read  the  two  vol- 
umes from  beginning  to  end  in  course. 

This  dictionary  is  a  brief  encyclopedia,  and  the  Scriptural  authorities 
cited,  with  the  book  and  chapter  noted,  render  it  to  some  extent  a  con- 
cordance. Families  in  which  there  are  reading  children  all  need  this 
book ;  for  without  it  many  popular  works  can  not  be  read  to  advantage. 
It  will  be  almost  necessary  in  the  higher  schools. 

It  may  not  be  improper  to  state,  that  this  American  dictionary  is  now 
used  by  literary  men  in  all  parts  of  Europe.  Mr.  Meidinger,  of  Frank- 
fort, who  pronounces  Dr.  Webster  to  be  that  profound  linguist,  "ce  pro- 
fond  linguiste,"  has,  in  his  dictionary  of  the  Teuto-Gothic  languages, 
cited  the  American  dictionary  in  almost  every  page. 

Dr.  WEBSTER'S  EDITION  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

From  the  Rev.  Dr.  Chapin,  Recording  Secretary  to  the  Board  of  For- 
eign Missions. 

This  is  a  real  and  therefore  desirable  improvement ;  it  of  course 
deserves  encouragement.  It  expresses  with  exactness  and  precision,  the 
meaning  conveyed  by  the  original  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
by  the  Greek  of  the  New.  The  common  translation  contains  many 
words  and  phrases,  of  which  the  refinements  of  modern  education, 
taste  and  feeling,  call  for  an  exchange.  To  introduce  a  decorous  sub- 
stitute, in  every  instance  where  possible,  for  an  exceptionable  term  or 
expression,  has  been  the  very  laudable  purpose  of  Dr.  Webster.  In 
grammatical  accuracy  and  in  verbal  purity,  he  has  succeeded,  it  is  be- 
lieved, to  every  practical  extent. 

The  undersigned  can  not,  therefore,  hesitate  to  declare  his  entire 
approbation  of  the  learned  author's  object  and  success.  He  is  in  the 
habit  of  daily  using  this  improved  edition  of  the  Bible.  He  often  crit- 
ically compares  the  ungrammatical  and  improper  language,  so  often 
occurring  in  James's  version,  with  the  substitutes  here  presented.  As 
tlie  result,  he  feels  a  delightful  conviction,  that  these  literary  variations 
do  constitute  the  requisite  and  much  desired  improvement  of  our  sacred 
volume,  and  are  worthy  of  universal  adoption.  He  feels  it  to  be  his 
duty  and  his  pleasure,  to  recommend  for  general  use,  the  Bible  in  this 
most  excellent  form. 

The  Rev.  Zebulon  Crocker,  of  Middletown,  writes  to  the  author  : 
"  AtTter  having  used  your  edition  of  the  Bible  six  or  seven  years,  for 
family  reading,  in  connection  with  the  common  version,  and  also  to 
some  extent  for  public  instruction,  I  am  prepared  not  only  to  pronounce 
it  a  great  improvement,  but  all  things  considered,  as  perfect  a  transla- 
tion of  the  Scripture  as  we  can  well  expect  to  obtain.  I  see  many 
reasons  for  wishing  it  might  be  adopted  in  pulpits,  in  schools  and  in 
families,  in  short,  every  where,  and  be  by  common  consent,  the  only 
Bible  in  our  language,  published  and  sold." 


From  Clergymen. 

We  use  Dr.  Webster's  edition  of  the  Bible  in  our  families,  and  can 
cheerfully  recommend  it  to  others.  Nathaniel  W.  Tayloe. 

Leonard  Bacon. 
Thomas  A.  Merrill. 
William  C.  Fowlee, 

"  The  subscribers  have,  for  some  months  past,  used  Dr.  Webster's 
edition  of  the  Bible  in  our  families,  and  we  can  sincerely  say,  that  we 
are  well  pleased  with  his  emendations  of  the  language.  This  work  is 
not  a  new  translation^  but  the  common  version,  with  improvements  of 
the  language,  without  an  alteration  of  the  sense,  except  in  three  or  four 
passages,  in  which  mistakes  had  been  introduced  by  oversight  or  mis- 
printing. The  editor  has,  by  a  change  of  words,  illustrated  many  pas- 
sages, which,  in  the  common  copies,  are  obscure  or  unintelligible  to 
ordinary  readers,  and  altered  some  words  and  passatges,  which  can 
not  be  uttered  before  an  audience  without  giving  offense,  especially  to 
females  ;  which  words  and  phrases  subject  the  Scriptures  to  the  scoffs 
of  infidels.  The  more  we  read  this  amended  copy,  the  better  we  like  it ; 
and  we  cheerfully  commend  it  to  the  use  of  others,  believing  that  an 
examination  of  the  work  will  remove  objections  to  the  amendments, 
and  be  the  means  of  promoting  religion,  by  extending  the  use  of  the 
Bible  in  schools." 

Kev.  Edwin  E.  Griswold,  of  the  Methodist  connection  ;  Rev. 
Judson  A.  Root,  Principal  of  the  Female  Institute ;  Charles 
Bostwick,  Deacon  of  United  Society,  New  Haven  ;  Rev. 
Smith  Dayton,  of  the  Methodist  connection ;  Henry  White, 
Esq.,  Deacon  of  the  First  Church,  New  Haven  ;  Everard 
Benjamin,  Deacon  of  the  Free  Church,  New  Haven. 

The  editor  of  the  Congregationalist  has  remarked  on  the  emend- 
ations of  the  language  of  the  Bible  by  Dr.  Webster,  that  the  work  is 
as  well  done,  as  if  it  had  been  executed  by  an  association  of  literary 
gentlemen.  And  the  Rev.  Z.  Crocker  has  published  his  opinion,  that 
"  no  man,  nor  any  number  of  men,  could  reasonably  be  expected  to 
execute  it  better." 

WEBSTER'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Extract  from  the  Middlesex  Gazette. 

It  is  pleasing  amidst  the  redundancy  of  elementary  compilations,  to 
meet  with  one  which  is  written  by  a  man  of  learning  and  experience, 
who  is  thoroughly  master  of  the  subject,  and  well  acquainted  with  the 
wants  of  those  for  whom  his  work  is  principally  intended.  Such  appears 
to  be  the  History  of  the  United  States,  published  by  Dr.  Webster. 

Nothing  that  can  be  here  said,  will  be  likely  to  add  to  the  reputation 
of  the  learned  and  venerable  compiler.  This  literary  veteran  has  un- 
questionably done  more  to  raise  and  establish  the  reputation  of  our 
country  in  philological  learning,  than  all  our  writers  besides.  He  is 
also  the  man  to  whom  the  public  is  under  immense  obligation,  from  his 
being  the  first  to  set  about  in  earnest  to  improve  the  elementary  books 


which  are  not  only  necessary  in  schools,  but  adapted  to  instruct  our 
youth  in  general.  He  it  is,  who  gave  the  first  impulse  to  that  improved 
plan  of  elementary  education,  which  has  made  such  surprising  progress 
since  the  termination  of  our  revolution. 

The  present  work  is  perfectly  adapted  to  the  object  of  the  author.  It 
contains  a  lucid  but  succinct  account  of  all  the  most  interesting  events 
of  the  United  States,  arranged  in  perspicuous  method,  and  described 
with  candor  and  impartiality. 

It  is  a  work  adapted  to  the  higher  classes  of  schools,  to  youth  who 
are  acquiring  a  taste  for  history,  and  to  the  man  of  business,  who  has  not 
time  to  examine  larger  treatises.  On  account  of  the  various  kinds  of 
miscellaneous  information  and  moral  instruction,  which  are  interspersed 
through  the  volume,  it  is  peculiarly  fitted  to  become  a  family  book,  and 
to  make  a  portion  of  the  amusing  and  instructive  reading  of  the  domestic 
circle,  during  the  long  winter  evenings  of  our  northern  climate. 

THOMAS  MINER. 

WEBSTER'S  IMPROVED  GRAMMAR. 

A  critical  scholar  writes,  in  the  Middlesex  Gazette,  that  "  this  is  the 
only  grammar  which  exhibits  a  true  account  of  our  language." 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  to  the  author,  from  the  la- 
mented Horatio  Gates  Spafford,  the  author  of  the  Gazetteer  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  who  fell  a  victim  to  the  cholera  : 

"  It  has  happened  to  me  this  morning,  that  I  took  up  thy  grammar, 
and  I  examined  it  with  an  increased  degree  of  interest  and  pleasure. 
How  much  I  found  to  admire,  and  how  much  to  increase  my  sentiments  , 
of  obligation  to  the  author,  I  shall  omit  to  describe.  I  am  greatly  thy 
debtor,  my  worthy  friend.  This  book  alone  ought  to  command  the 
gratitude  of  thy  country,  and  that  country  should  pride  itself  on  such  an 
author.  Posterity  will  do  thee  justice,  and  the  time  is  coming,  when  all 
previous  grammars  will  be  wiped  away,  as  the  cobwebs  of  literature,  to 
make  way  for  the  science  of  grammar  in  Webster." 

MANUAL  OF  USEFUL  STUDIES  AND  GRAMMAR. 
From  the  Rev.  Emerson  Davis,  of  Westfield,  Mass. 

I  have  examined  Dr.  Webster's  Manual,  and  think  it  well  adapted  to 
the  use  of  high  schools,  and  to  the  older  scholars  in  our  common 
schools.  It  contains  information  on  many  important  topics,  that  chil- 
dren and  youth  can  not  easily  find  elsewhere.  Dr.  Webster's  Gram- 
mar, for  philosophical  accuracy  and  depth  of  research,  is  not  surpassed 
by  any  other.  It  should  be  in  the  hands  of  every  teacher,  and  used  by 
every  scholar  who  desires  a  correct  and  thorough  knowledge  of  the 
structure  of  the  English  language. 

These  views  have  not  been  formed  without  examination.  I  have 
been  familiar  with  the  Grammar  for  years,  and  with  the  Manual  ever 
since  it  was  published. 

REMARK. 

Webster's  Spelling  Books,  having  been  more  used  for  fifty  years 
than  any  oiher  books  of  the  kind,  have  had  a  great  effect  in  correcting 
errors,  and  impressing  uniformity  on  our  popular  language.  So  highly 
is  his  Elementary  S|>elling  Book  esteemed,  that  it  is  printed  and  used  in 
Canada,  in  preference  to  English  books. 


MISCELLANEOUS    PAPERS. 


CHAPTER    I. 
REVOLUTION    IN    TRANCE. 

INTRODUCTION. 

Men  of  all  descriptions  are  frequently  asking  the  questions,  What 
will  be  the  fate  of  France  ?  What  will  be  the  consequences  of  the 
Revolution  in  France  ?  Will  France  be  conquered  ?  and  others  of  a 
like  nature. 

These  questions  are  extremely  interesting,  as  they  respect  every 
thing  which  concerns  the  happiness  of  men  in  the  great  societies  of 
Europe  and  America;  government,  liberty,  arts,  science,  agriculture, 
commerce,  morality,  religion. 

It  would  be  an  evidence  of  daring  presumption  to  attempt  to  open 
the  volume  of  divine  determinations  on  these  momentous  questions. 
But  it  is  highly  proper,  at  all  times,  to  exercise  our  reason,  in  exam- 
ining the  connection  between  causes  and  their  effects ;  and  in  predict- 
ing, with  modesty,  the  probable  consequences  of  known  events. 

It  is  conceived  to  be  the  duty  of  the  historian  and  the  statesman,  not 
merely  to  collect  accounts  of  battles,  the  slaughter  of  the  human  race, 
the  sacking  of  cities,  the  seizure  and  confiscation  of  shipping,  and  other 
bloody  and  barbarous  deeds,  the  work  of  savage  man  toward  his  fel- 
low men ;  but  to  discover,  if  possible,  the  causes  of  great  changes  in 
the  affairs  of  men ;  the  springs  of  those  important  movements,  which 
vary  the  aspect  of  government,  the  features  of  nations,  and  the  very 
character  of  man. 

The  present  efforts  of  the  French  nation,  in  resisting  the  forces  of 
the  combined  powers,  astonish  even  reflecting  men.  They  far  exceed 
every  thing  exhibited  during  the  energetic  reigns  of  Francis  I.  and 
Louis  XIV.  To  ascertain  the  true  principles  from  which  have  sprung 
the  union  and  the  vigor  which  have  marked  this  amazing  revolution,  is 
a  work  of  no  small  labor,  and  may  be  of  great  public  utility. 

JAC  OBIN     SOCIETY. 

It  is  conceived  the  first  principle  of  combination  in  France,  was  the 
establishment  of  the  Jacobin  Society.  The  members  of  this  associa- 
tion may  not  originally  have  foreseen  the  extent  of  the  Revolution,  or 
the  full  effect  of  their  own  institution.  At  the  time  it  was  formed, 
there  may  have  been  many  persons  in  it,  who  were  friends  to  the  mon- 
archy of  France,  under  the  control  of  a  constitution,  and  an  elective 

1 


2  HEVaLl>r»OiS    IN    FRANC£. 

legislative  «*=5ei!ot;y"  -  "But  the  intewst.  of  the  ancient  court,  the  nobility 
and  clergy,  was  then  considerable,  not  only  in  Paris,  but  in  every  depart- 
ment of  France.  It  was  necessary,  in  the  view  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Republican  party,  to  circumscribe  or  destroy  the  court  influence  by 
direct  legislative  acts ;  or  to  raise  throughout  France,  a  combination 
of  republicans,  who,  by  union  and  concert,  might  oppose  it  with  suc- 
cess. The  public  mind  was  not  ripe  for  the  first  expedient,  the  direct 
invasion  of  the  privileged  orders  ;  the  Republicans  therefore,  with  a 
discernment  that  marks  great  talents,  resorted  to  the  last  expedient,  the 
institution  of  popular  societies  in  every  department  of  that  extensive 
country.  These  societies  are  all  moved  by  the  mainspring  of  the  ma- 
chine, the  Jacobin  Society  in  Paris ;  and  by  the  perfect  concert  ob- 
served in  all  their  proceedings,  they  have  been  able  to  crush  every 
other  influence,  and  establish  over  France  a  government  as  singular  in 
its  kind,  as  it  is  absolute  in  its  exercise. 

COMMISSIONEES. 

In  pursuance  of  the  same  principle  of  combination,  though  not  co- 
temporary  in  its  adoption,  was  the  plan  of  conducting  both  civil  and 
military  operations  in  all  parts  of  the  Republic,  by  commissioners  from 
the  National  Convention.  It  was  found  that,  although  the  Jacobin  So- 
cieties had  a  very  extensive  influence  in  seconding  the  views  of  the 
Republican  party  ;  yet  this  was  the  influence  of  opinion,  and  private 
exertion  merely  ;  an  influence  too  small  and  indirect,  to  answer  every 
purpose.  These  societies  were  voluntary  associations,  unclothed  with 
any  legal  authority.  To  conduct  the  intended  revolution,  it  was  neces- 
sary there  should  be  persons,  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  vested  with 
full  powers  to  execute  the  decrees  of  the  Convention,  a  majority  of 
whom  were  Jacobins,  and  whose  measures  were  only  the  resolutions 
of  the  Jacobin  Society  in  Paris,  clothed  with  the  sanction  of  a  consti- 
tutional form.  To  supply  the  defect  of  legal  authority  in  the  several 
popular  societies,  commissioners  were  deputed  from  the  Convention, 
invested  with  the  most  absolute  powers  to  watch  over  the  civil  and  mil- 
itary officers  employed  in  responsible  stations,  to  detect  conspiracies, 
to  arrest  suspected  persons,  and  in  short  to  control  all  the  operations 
of  that  extensive  country.  These  commissioners,  being  usually  taken 
from  the  Jacobin  Society  at  Paris,  and  having  a  constant  communica- 
tion with  the  Convention,  which  was  ruled  by  them,  were  enabled  to 
carry  all  their  measures  into  full  effect.  A  single  club,  by  this  curious 
artifice,  gave  law  to  France.  An  immense  machine,  by  the  most  ex- 
traordinary contexture  of  its  parts,  was  and  is  still,  moved  by  a  single 
spring. 

To  unclog  this  machine  from  all  its  incumbrances,  and  give  vigor 
to  its  active  operations,  it  was  necessary  to  displace  all  its  enemies. 
For  this  purpose,  all  suspected  and  disaffected  persons  were  to  be  re- 
moved. Under  pretense  of  guarding  the  public  safety,  and  delivering 
the  Republic  from  traitors,  insidiously  plotting  its  destruction,  a  Court 
was  established,  called  the  Revolutionary  Tribunal,  consisting  of  men 
devoted  to  the  views  of  the  Jacobins,  and  clothed  with  powers  that  made 
their  enemies  tremble.     The  summary  jurisdiction,  assumed  or  exer- 


REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE.  |l 

cised  by  this  tribunal,  together  with  its  executive  instrument,  the  guil- 
lotin,  have  filled  France  with  human  blood,  and  swept  away  opposition. 

The  Commissioners  in  the  several  departments  and  municipalities 
have  renewed  the  tyranny  of  the  decemvirs  of  Rome.  The  writer  is 
informed,  that  while  they  aflTect  the  pomp  and  the  manners  of  Roman 
consuls,  they  exercise  the  powers  of  a  dictator.  The  two  Commission- 
ers at  Bourdeaux,  imitating  as  far  as  possible  the  Roman  habit,  ride  in 
a  car  or  carriage  drawn  by  eight  horses,  attended  by  a  body  of  guards, 
resembling  the  pretorian  bands,  and  preceded  by  lictors  with  their  bat- 
tle-axes. 

The  authority  of  all  the  commissioners  is  nearly  dictatorial.  They 
arrest,  try  and  condemn,  in  a  most  summary  manner.  Not  only  dif- 
ference of  opinion,  but  moderation,  and  especially  the  possession  of 
money,  are  unpardonable  crimes,  punishable  with  death,  in  the  view  of 
these  delegates  of  dictatorial  power. 

By  ihls  pj'inciple  of  combination,  has  a  party,  originally  small,  been 
enabled  to  triumph  over  all  opposition. 

In  the  mean  time,  a  numerous  and  ignoi'ant  populace  were  to  be 
amused,  united,  won  to  their  party,  and  fired  with  enthusiasm  for  lib- 
erty. These  people,  who  little  understand  the  principles  of  govern- 
ment, were  to  be  rendered  subservient  to  the  views  of  the  Republican 
party  ;  and  as  their  reason  could  be  little  affected  by  arguments,  their 
passions  were  to  be  roused  by  the  objects  of  sense.  As  the  most  of 
them  can  not  read,  particular  persons  were  employed  in  the  towns  and 
villages  to  read  to  them,  the  inflammatory  writings  which  flowed  from 
the  Parisian  presses.  These  readers  collected  the  people  in  crowds,  read 
to  them  such  pieces  against  the  king,  queen,  nobility  and  clergy,  as 
were  calculated  to  irritate  their  passions  and  inspire  them  with  impla- 
cable hatred  against  these  orders.  They  were  taught  to  believe  them 
all  tyrants,  traitors  and  oppressors.  These  public  readers  would  also 
harangue  extemporaneously  on  the  same  subjects  :  such  artifices  had 
a  prodigious  effect  in  changing  the  attachment  of  the  people  for  their 
king  and  their  priesthood,  to  the  most  violent  aversion.  This  hatred 
soon  discovered  itself  in  the  destruction  of  a  great  number  of  noble- 
men's chateaus  ;  the  busts  of  ancient  kings,  pictures  and  other  ensigns 
of  the  royal  government.  At  the  same  time  a  number  of  patriotic 
songs  were  composed,  as  Ca  ira,  Carmagnole,  and  the  Marseillois 
hymn  ;  which  were  soon  spread  over  France,  and  have  had  a  more  ex- 
tensive influence  over  the  soldiers,  seamen,  and  the  peasantry  of  that 
country,  in  reconciling  them  to  the  hardships  of  war,  and  firing  them 
with  an  enthusiasm  for  what  they  call  liberty,  than  the  world  in  gen- 
eral will  believe  ;  an  influence  perhaps  as  powerful  as  that  of  all  other 
causes  combined. 

Interrupted  as  our  intercourse  is  with  France,  and  agitated  as  the 
public  mind  must  be  with  passing  scenes,  it  can  not  be  expected  that 
we  should  obtain  from  that  country  a  dispassionate  and  minute  detail 
of  causes  and  their  consequences ;  but  I  believe  the  facts  I  have  men- 
tioned will  go  far  to  account  for  the  unprecedented  union  of  the  people 
of  France,  notwithstanding  the  operation  of  the  usual  causes  of  di.scord, 
and  the  influence  of  foreign  gold  very  liberally  exerted  to  disunite 
tliem,  and  perplex  their  measures.     It  has  however  been  necessary  for 


4  REVOLUTION   IN   FRANCE. 

the  Convention  to  resort  to  the  terrors  of  the  guillotin,  and  of  death 
and  the  destruction  of  whole  cities,  to  awe  the  spirit  of  opposition  to 
their  system.  Very  numerous  and  most  terrible  examples  of  punish- 
ment have  had  a  powerful  temporary  effect,  in  subduing  their  internal 
dissensions.  How  far  the  people  will  bear  oppression,  is  a  point  on 
which  we  can  not  decide. 

NATIONAL     TREASURY. 

The  measures  taken  by  the  Convention  to  prolong  the  resistance  of 
France,  are  no  less  singular,  bold  and  decisive.  It  was  found  that  im- 
mense sums  of  money  would  be  necessary  to  maintain  the  vast  body 
of  men  and  military  apparatus,  requisite  to  oppose  the  combined  forces 
of  more  than  one  half  of  Europe.  To  furnish  the  funds  necessary  for 
this  purpose,  the  Convention  very  early  adopted  the  plan  of  issuing  as- 
signals  or  bills  of  credit,  an  expedient  practiced  with  great  success  in 
America  during  her  late  Revolution.  This  paper  however  was  issued 
on  safer  ground  than  the  American  paper,  as  confiscated  property  to  a 
vast  amount  was  pledged  for  its  redemption. 

It  was  found  however  that  this  paper  would  depreciate  ;  as  the  funds 
pledged  for  its  redemption  were  exhausted,  or  proved  inadequate  to  the 
enormous  demands  made  upon  the  nation,  in  consequence  of  a  great 
augmentation  of  their  military  establishment,  after  opening  the  last 
campaign.  To  supply  the  deficiency,  and  to  put  it  out  of  the  power 
of  chance  or  enmity  to  drain  the  Republic  of  its  specie,  the  Convention 
adopted  the  following  desperate  expedients.  They  exacted  from  mon- 
eyed men  whatever  specie  they  possessed,  by  way  of  loan.  This  is 
called  emprunt  force  ;  a  forced  loan.  And  to  make  sure  of  this  specie, 
they  contracted  with  certain  bankers  in  Paris  to  advance  twelve  mil- 
lions sterling  of  the  money,  paying  them  a  large  commission  for  the 
risk  and  forbearance.  The  amount  of  the  specie  to  be  thus  brought 
into  the  national  treasury,  may  be  twenty  millions  sterling.  This 
measure,  together  with  the  proceeds  of  confiscations,  has  accumulated 
a  great  proportion  of  the  current  specie  of  the  country  in  the  treasury. 

Not  satisfied  with  these  measures,  the  Convention  have  taken  pos- 
session of  all  the  plate  of  the  churches,  which,  in  all  Roman  Catholic 
countries,  must  be  very  considerable,  but  in  France  amounts  to  immense 
value.  It  is  estimated  by  gentlemen  well  acquainted  with  this  subject, 
that  this  public  plate  which  is  carried  to  the  mint,  will  amount  to  twenty 
five  millions  sterling ;  a  sum  nearly  equal  to  the  whole  current  specie 
of  that  rich  commerical  country,  England. 

It  was  estimated  by  Mr.  Neckar  and  others,  just  as  the  Revolution 
commenced,  that  the  current  coin  of  France  was  at  least  eighty  mil- 
lions sterling ;  a  sum  equal  to  one  third,  perhaps  one  half,  of  all  the 
specie  of  Europe.  Allowing  large  sums  to  have  been  carried  out  of 
the  country  by  emigrants,  and  some  to  be  buried  for  safety,  but  taking 
into  the  account  the  accession  of  twenty  five  millions  coined  from  plate, 
and  we  may  estimate  the  amount  of  specie  in  possession  of  the  Conven- 
tion, to  be  from  sixty  to  seventy  millions  sterling. 

Having  thus  collected  all  the  precious  metals  in  that  country,  the 
Convention,  instead  of  using  specie  freely  to  furnish  supplies  for  the 


REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE.  5 

army,  expend  it  with  great  economy.  They  hold  it  in  reserve,  for 
times  and  exigencies  when  all  other  expedients  fail.  At  present  they 
compel  every  person  whatever,  to  take  assignats  for  provision,  clothing, 
and  other  articles,  at  a  certain  price  fixed  by  a  valuation.  They  seize 
whatever  grain  or  other  articles  a  man  has,  beyond  an  estimated  supply 
for  his  own  family,  and  pay  him  in  paper  at  the  stated  price.  In  this 
manner  they  seem  determined  to  make  their  paper  answer  every  pur- 
pose as  long  as  possible,  and  when  this  fails,  they  will  still  have  specie 
enough  at  command,  with  the  aid  of  some  taxes,  to  prosecute  the  war 
for  three  or  four  years. 

^  PROBABLE     EVENT     OF    THE     WAR. 

■V 

-  It  may  be  doubtful  whether  the  body  of  people  will  long  sit  easy, 
under  such  severe  regulations.  An  enthusiasm  for  liberty  will  do 
much,  the  guillotin  and  an  irresistible  army  will  do  more,  toward  pre- 
serving peace  and  order.  But  there  is  nothing  dearer  to  a  man  than 
the  liberty  of  making  his  own  bargains ;  and  whether  the  forcible 
means  employed  to  procure  from  people  their  produce  or  manufactures, 
will  not  at  least  check  industry  and  limit  the  exertions  of  laborers  to  a 
bare  supply  of  their  own  wants,  is  a  point  very  problematical.  But 
whatever  may  be  the  wants  of  France,  there  is  little  danger,  while  her 
specie  is  at  the  command  of  government,  that  her  provisions  will  fail. 
Her  rich  soil  will  furnish  the  principal  mass  of  food  ;  and  should  dis- 
tress call  for  foreign  supplies,  her  own  shipping  will  supply  her  from 
abroad. 

If  these  ideas  are  well  founded,  France  is  able  to  sustain  a  war  of 
many  years.  She  can  supply  men  enough  to  resist  the  combined  pow- 
ers forever.  Her  natural  population  will  forever  repair  her  annual  loss 
of  men ;  and  the  longer  a  war  lasts,  the  more  soldiers  will  she  pos- 
sess. The  whole  country  will  become  an  immense  camp  of  disciplined 
veterans. 

While  policy,  aided  by  the  strong  arm  of  absolute  power,  is  thus 
furnishing  France  with  the  means  of  defense,  what  prospect  have  the 
combined  powers  of  effecting  their  purposes }  France  may  defend 
herself  until  England  is  bankrupt,  and  Austria  is  beggared.  Possibly 
England  and  Holland  may  sustain  the  war  another  campaign  ;  and 
more  than  this,  they  unquestionably  will  not.  The  states  of  Italy, 
which  have  been  compelled  to  renounce  their  neutrality,  will  yield  a 
cold,  reluctant,  feeble  assistance,  and  embrace  the  first  favorable  mo- 
ment to  renounce  the  confederacy.  Portugal  is  nothing  in  the  contest. 
Spain,  it  is  an  equal  chance,  will  be  overrun  and  plundered  by  a 
French  army,  will  itself  be  disabled  and  its  riches  only  furnish  the 
French  with  additional  means  of  defense,  Prussia  has  gained  her  prin- 
cipal object  in  obtaining  a  large  division  of  Poland ;  she  now  demands 
a  considerable  debt  of  the  Empire,  which  the  Diet  is  not  well  able  to 
discharge.  The  Empress  of  Russia  is  encouraging  the  controversy, 
while  she  laughs  at  the  combination  and  is  adding  to  her  dominions. 
Austria  is  powerful,  but  she  is  exhausting  her  resources  ;  and  by  reason 
of  the  distance  which  great  part  of  her  supplies  are  to  be  transported, 
her  means  must  fail  before  those  of  France,     Already  the  Emperor 


W 


b  EEVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE, 

calls  for  voluntary  aid  from  his  subjects  in  Flanders.     In  this  situation, 
where  is  the  hope  of  conquering  France  ! 

It  is  more  probable  that  France  will  not  only  resist  all  this  force,  but 
will  retain  strength  sufficient  to  commence  an  offensive  war,  when  the 
confederacy  of  her  enemies  shall  be  dissolved,  and  the  resources  of 
each  exhausted.  Her  enemies  will  waste  their  strength  in  making 
France  a  garrison  of  disciplined  soldiers,  impregnable  within,  and  ter- 
rible to  surrounding  nations.  The  moment  the  combination  is  broken, 
and  the  army  now  investing  France  disabled,  half  a  million  of  hardy 
exasperated  French  warriors,  inured  to  service,  and  fired  with  victory, 
will  be  let  loose  upon  defenseless  Europe  ;  and  in  their  mad  enthusiasm 
to  destroy,  not  despotism  merely,  but  all  the  works  of  elegance  and 
art,  they  may  renew  the  desolations  of  the  sixth  and  seventh  centuries. 
Already  has  France  experienced  a  revolution  in  property,  in  manners, 
in  opinions,  in  law,  in  government,  that  has  not  been  equaled  in  the 
world  since  the  conquests  of  Attila  and  Genseric.  The  ravages  of 
Genghis  Khan,  of  Tamerlane  and  the  Saracens  were  extensive ;  they 
were  attended  with  slaughter  and  devastation.  But  the  conquered  na- 
tions only  changed  masters  and  remained  unchanged  themselves.  The 
revolution  in  France  is  attended  with  a  change  of  manners.,  opinions 
and  institutions,  infinitely  more  singular  and  important,  than  a  change 
of  masters  or  of  government. 

Of  the  two  possible  events,  a  conquest  of  France,  and  a  total  ulti- 
mate defeat  of  the  combination  against  the  Republic,  I  am  free  in  de- 
claring my  opinion,  that  the  former  is  less  probable  than  the  latter. 
And  should  victory  finally  declare  for  France,  her  armies  may  prove 
formidable  to  Europe.  Italy  and  the  Netherlands  must  inevitably  fall 
under  her  dominion,  unless  prevented  by  a  timely  pacification. 

Such  being  the  origin  and  progress  of  this  astonishing  revolution, 
let  us  examine  its  probable  effects. 

DEBTS. 

The  effects  of  war  upon  the  hostile  nations  are  always  to  exhaust  their 
strength  and  resources,  and  incur  heavy  debts.  Should  France  succeed 
in  baffling  her  foes,  an  immense  debt  will  be  contracted,  which  must  be 
paid,  funded  or  expunged.  An  immediate  payment  is  not  to  be  expected  ; 
it  will  be  impracticable.  It  may  be  justly  questioned,  whether  the  best 
administration  of  her  finances  will,  for  many  years,  discharge  the 
interest.  Such  a  general  war,  which  involves  in  it  a  diversion  of  labor- 
ers from  their  usual  occupations,  a  destruction  of  manufacturing  towns 
and  villages,  a  limitation  of  commercial  intercourse,  and  especially  a 
loss  of  capital  among  all  descriptions  of  citizens,  must  dry  up  the 
sources  of  revenue,  and  occasion  a  deficiency  that  will  materially  affect 
the  credit  of  the  nation.  If  therefore  the  government  should  be  dis- 
posed to  fund  the  national  debt,  its  inability  to  pay  the  interest,  must, 
for  some  years,  cause  a  depreciation  in  the  value  of  the  receipts  or 
evidences  of  that  debt.  This  depreciation  will  renew  the  speculations 
of  John  Law's  administration — or  rather  the  scenes  exhibited  in  Amer- 
ica in  1790,  1791  and  1792.  Should  this  be  the  case,  immense  for- 
tunes will  be  made ;  a  new  species  of  aristocrats,  as  they  will  be  called, 


REVOLUTION    IN    FKANCE.  7 

will  arise  out  of  the  equality  of  sans-culottism,  and  unless  a  change  of 
sentiment  shall  take  place  in  the  people,  these  new-fledged  nabobs  will 
be  considered  as  noxious  weeds  in  society,  that  are  to  be  mown  down 
with  that  political  sylhe,  the  all-leveling  guillotin. 

But  the  funding  of  debts  is  at  present  not  an  article  in  the  national 
French  creed.  On  the  other  hand,  the  revolutionists  execrate  the  sys- 
tem that  entails  on  posterity  the  debts  of  the  pi'esent  generation,  and 
fills  a  country  with  negotiators  and  stock-jobbers.  If  then  the  nation 
can  not  pay  the  principal,  and  will  not  pay  the  interest,  the  remaining 
alternative  is  to  expunge  the  whole  debt. 

We  can  not  however  suppose  that  the  same  administration  of  the 
government  will  continue  for  a  long  period.  The  probability  is  that 
when  danger  of  external  foes  shall  be  removed,  the  nation  will  elect  a 
new  Convention  of  a  very  different  complexion.  Too  many  good  citi- 
zens will  be  public  creditors,  to  suffer  the  debts  of  the  nation  to  be 
wiped  away  with  a  spunge.  It  is  more  probable  that  efforts  will  be 
m^de  to  discharge  them ;  and  as  the  proceeds  of  confiscations  will  be 
soon  exhausted,  and  there  are  no  wild  lands  in  France,  the  government 
must  resort  to  the  usual  modes  of  raising  money,  by  customs,  and  taxes, 
with  loans  or  anticipations  of  revenue.  So  that  after  all  the  fine  philo- 
sophy of  France,  she  will  probably  be  obliged  to  submit  to  some  of  the 
old  schemes  of  finance,  which  her  wise  legislators  now  execrate.  We 
have  therefore  no  great  reason  to  apprehend  that  her  government  will 
be  able  to  expunge  her  debts,  nor  can  we  suppose  that  dibso\u\e  freedom 
from  debt  will  constitute  a  part  of  her  promised  millennium  of  reason 
and  philosophy. 

AGRICTTLTURE. 

The  important  changes  in  the  tenure  of  lands  in  France  will  produce 
the  most  distinguishable  effects.  The  feudal  system  was  calculated  for 
no  good  purpose,  except  for  defense  among  a  barbarous  people.  It 
was  every  way  formed  to  check  the  exertions  of  the  great  mass  of  peo- 
ple, whose  labor,  in  all  countries,  is  the  principal  source  of  wealth. 
That  must  always  be  a  bad  system  of  tenures  which  deprives  the  labor- 
ing man  of  the  great  stimulus  to  industry,  the  prospect  of  enjoying  the 
reward  of  his  labor.  Such  was  the  feudal  system  throughout  Europe, 
and  it  is  observable  that  agriculture  and  manufactures  have  made  slow 
progress  in  every  part  of  Europe  where  that  system  has  been  suffered 
to  prevail  in  its  ancient  vigor.  The  principal  cities  of  Italy  and  Ger- 
many first  regained  their  freedom  and  revived  industry.  The  abolition 
of  military  tenures  in  England  may  be  considered  as  the  epoch  of  her 
wealth  and  prosperity.  Under  the  old  government  of  France,  the  feu- 
dal system  had  lost  much  of  its  severity.  There  were  many  laboring 
men  who  enjoyed  small  freeholds  ;  too  small  however  for  the  purpose 
of  improving  in  cultivation.  But  two  thirds  of  the  lands  were  leased 
to  the  peasantry,  the  landlord  furnishing  the  stock  of  the  farm,  and  re- 
ceiving half  the  produce.  This  mode  has  ever  been  found  less  benefi- 
cial to  a  country,  than  leases  on  fixed  rents  in  money. 

But  by  the  late  revolution,  a  vast  proportion  of  the  lands  will  change 
hands ;  and  much  of  them  become  freehold  estate,  subject  to  no  rent. 


8  REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE. 

or  none  that  shall  be  oppressive.  The  laboring  people,  becoming  pro- 
prietors and  cultivating  for  their  own  benefit,  will  feel  all  the  motives 
to  labor  that  can  influence  the  human  heart  in  that  particular.  The 
mind,  unfettered  and  prompted  to  action,  will  exert  its  faculties  in  vari- 
ous kinds  of  improvement ;  and  when  the  distresses  of  war  shall  cease, 
the  French  nation  will  push  improvements  in  agriculture  to  a  length 
hitherto  unknown  in  that  country.  Previous  to  this  however  property- 
must  be  placed  under  the  protection  of  law  ;  and  the  laws  must  receive 
an  energy  from  a  well-constituted  executive  power,  that  shall  insure  a 
due  execution. 

MANUFACTUEES. 

The  same  circumstances  which  will  invigorate  industry  in  one  branch 
of  business,  will  extend  their  influence  to  every  other.  For  some  years 
indeed  the  desolating  effects  of  war  will  be  visible.  The  destruction  of 
some  manufacturing  towns,  the  loss  of  capital,  and  the  diversion  of 
laborers  from  their  employment,  will  be  severely  felt  for  many  years. 
But  the  active  genius  of  the  French  nation,  unfettered  from  the  impo- 
sing prejudices  of  former  times,  when  it  was  held  degrading  to  engage 
in  manual  occupations,  will  surmount  these  difficulties ;  and  the  im- 
mense wealth  of  the  emigrant  nobles,  the  national  domains,  or  other 
property  which  had  been  monopolized  and  sequestered  from  employ- 
ment, under  ancient  institutions,  will  be  brought  into  action  in  every 
branch  of  business.  After  the  ravages  of  war  shall  be  repaired,  a 
greater  mass  of  capital  will  be  employed  in  useful  arts,  and  rendered 
productive.  All  the  plate  of  the  churches,  now  converted  into  coin, 
and  immense  sums  formerly  squandered  by  a  profligate  nobility,  or 
withheld  from  employment  by  cloistered  monks,  will  he  brought  into 
circulation,  and  become  the  means  of  encouraging  industry.  Add  to 
these  circumstances,  the  amazing  increase  of  enterprise,  which  must 
follow  a  revolution,  that  has  awakened  a  nation  from  the  slumbers  of 
ignorance  and  inaction,  and  roused  into  life  the  dormant  faculties  of  its 
citizens. 

COMMERCE. 

Similar  circumstances  will  forward  the  growth  and  extension  of  com- 
merce. France  has  long  been  respectable,  for  its  commerce  and  its 
navy.  But  the  increase  of  agriculture  and  manufactures,  which  will 
necessarily  follow  the  downfall  of  the  feudal  distinctions,  and  the  more 
general  diflfusion  of  property,  will  produce  also  a  correspondent  increase 
of  commerce.  This  commerce  will  require  the  use  of  shipping,  and  the 
late  navigation  law  of  France  will  recall  to  her  some  of  the  advan- 
tages of  the  carrying  trade,  heretofore  enjoyed  by  the  English  and  the 
Dutch,  and  be  the  means  of  augmenting  her  navy. 

ARTS     AND     SCIENCE. 

Free  governments  are  the  soil  best  fitted  to  produce  improvements 
in  the  arts  and  sciences.  All  history  testifies  this.  France  indeed,  un- 
der her  old  government,  had  been  distinguished  for  a  cultivation  of  the 
sciences,  and  many  of  the  most  useful  and  elegant  arts.     In  many  re- 


REVOLUTION   IN   FRANCE.  9 

spects,  the  lover  of  philosophy  was  free,  and  full  scope  was  given  to 
human  genius.  In  other  respects,  freedom  of  writing  was  restrained 
by  the  hand  of  power,  and  the  bold  writers  of  that  nation  were  com- 
pelled to  retire  beyond  the  reach  of  it. 

The  universal  freedom  of  writing,  which  we  may  expect  to  prevail, 
when  the  present  storm  subsides,  will  be  among  the  most  conspicuous 
blessings  of  that  nation.  The  arts  will  receive  new  encouragement, 
and  the  sciences  new  luster,  from  the  active  genius  of  renovated  France. 

"''  RELIGION. 

The  progress  of  the  revolution  in  France,  with  respect  to  morals  and 
the  religion  of  the  nation,  affords  a  most  interesting  spectacle  to  reflect- 
ing men.  The  hierarchy  of  Rome  had  established,  over  the  minds  of 
its  votaries,  a  system  of  errors  and  superstition,  that  enslaved  their  opin- 
ions and  plundered  their  purses.  Long  had  nations  been  the  victims 
of  papal  domination,  and  spiritual  impositions.  Accustomed  from  child- 
hood to  count  their  beads,  to  bow  to  the  host,  and  chant  te  deum,  men 
supposed  the  ceremony  to  be  devotion ;  while  an  artful  priesthood  avail- 
ed themselves  of  their  weakness  and  errors,  to  spunge  from  the  deluded 
multitude,  a  great  portion  of  the  fruits  of  their  honest  labor. 

For  three  centuries  past,  the  reason  of  man  has  been  removing  the 
vail  of  error  from  his  mind.  In  some  countries,  the  vail  has  been  rent 
asunder ;  and  human  reason,  aided  and  directed  by  revelation,  has  as- 
sumed its  native  dignity.  But  in  France,  science  and  education,  while 
they  had  illuminated  a  portion  of  its  inhabitants,  had  not  dissipated  the 
gloom  that  was  spread  over  the  mass  of  the  nation.  Inquisitive  men 
had  searched  for  truth,  and  astonished  at  the  monstrous  absurdities  of 
the  national  religion,  their  minds,  starting  from  the  extreme  of  super- 
stition, vibrated  to  the  extreme  of  skepticism.  Because  they  found  re- 
ligion clothed  with  a  garb  of  fantastical  human  artifices,  they  rejected 
her  as  a  creature  of  human  invention,  pronounced  her  ceremonies  a 
farce,  and  derided  her  votaries.  Hence  sprung  a  race  of  literary  men, 
denominated  philosophers,  who,  under  their  illustrious  champions,  Vol- 
taire and  Rousseau,  attempted,  by  secret  undermining  or  open  assault, 
to  demolish  the  whole  fabric  of  the  national  religion,  and  to  erect  upon 
its  ruins,  the  throne  of  reason. 

Before  the  present  revolution  commenced,  this  philosophy  had  spread 
among  the  literati  of  France  ;  and  Paris  exhibited  then,  what  Italy  does 
now,  the  two  most  irreconcilable  extremes,  of  atheism  and  profound  su- 
perstition ;  the  most  scandalous  vices  mingled  Avith  the  most  scrupulous 
observance  of  religious  rites ;  the  same  persons  retiring  immediately 
from  their  mock  devotions  at  Notre  Dame,  to  the  revels  of  prostitution. 

In  this  situation  of  the  moral  and  religious  character  of  the  French 
nation,  began  the  revolution  of  1789.  The  philosophical  researches 
of  Voltaire,  Rousseau,  and  the  Abbe  Raynal,  had  long  before  unchained 
the  minds  of  that  part  of  the  French  nation  who  read  ;  a  respectable 
class  of  men.  These  men  understood  the  errors  of  their  government 
and  the  nature  of  liberty.  They  were  prepared  to  second  the  operation 
of  those  political  causes,  which  hastened  the  crisis  of  a  revolution. 
The  first  attentions  of  the  reformers  were  occupied  with  the  correction 

2 


10  REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE. 

of  political  evils,  rather  than  those  of  religion.  But  when  the  first  Na- 
tional Assembly  came  to  examine  the  system  of  their  government  with 
minute  inspection,  they  found  it  a  complicated  machine,  in  which  the 
ecclesiastical  state  was  so  interwoven  with  the  political,  that  it  would 
be  impossible  to  retrench  the  corruptions  of  the  one,  without  deranging 
the  whole  fabric.  It  became  necessary  therefore  (and  the  philosopher 
rejoiced  at  the  necessity)  to  take  down  the  whole  machine  of  despotism, 
involving  all  the  privileged  orders  in  the  proposed  renovation. 

The  first  Assembly  proceeded  as  far  as  they  durst,  in  laying  their 
hands  upon  the  immense  possessions  of  the  clergy,  and  abolishing  the 
monastic  institutions  ;  making  provision,  at  the  same  time,  for  maintain- 
ing the  clergy  by  granting  them  annual  salaries,  suited  to  their  former 
ranks  in  the  church.  This  step  was  bold,  and  gave  umbrage  to  many 
of  the  higher  dignitaries.  But  as  the  Assembly  had  the  policy  to  aug- 
ment the  salaries  of  most  of  the  inferior  clergy,  the  curates  or  vicars, 
who  were  the  most  numerous  body,  and  had  most  influence  over  the 
people,  this  measure  instead  of  endangering,  rather  strengthened  the 
cause  of  the  Revolution. 

Upon  the  election  of  the  second  Assembly,  a  new  scene  was  to  be 
presented.  A  party  of  violent  republicans,  not  satisfied  with  the  con- 
stitution of  1791,  and  resolved  to  exterminate  monarchy,  and  with  it  all 
the  privileged  orders,  after  a  violent  contest  with  their  adversaries,  the 
Fuillans,  in  which  the  latter  were  defeated,  assumed  the  government  of 
France  ;  and  from  the  full  establishment  of  the  Jacobins,  with  a  decided 
majority  in  the  Convention,  we  date  many  important  changes  in  the  cus- 
toms and  institutions  of  that  country.  The  progress  of  these  changes 
in  detail  is  left  for  the  historian ;  my  limits  confining  me  to  sketches 
only  of  these  great  events.  In  general,  however,  I  may  observe,  that 
the  ruling  party  in  France  have  waged  an  inveterate  war  with  Chris- 
tianity ;  and  have  endeavored  to  efface  all  the  monuments  by  which  it 
has  been  perpetuated.  They  have  abolished  not  only  the  Sabbath,  by 
substituting  one  day  in  ten  as  a  day  of  rest  and  amtisement  in  lieu  of  one 
day  in  seven ;  but  they  have  changed  the  mode  of  reckoning  time,  sub- 
stituting the  foundation  of  the  Republic  as  the  vulgar  era,  instead  of  the 
Christian  era.  They  have  not  indeed  prohibited  any  man  from  believ- 
ing what  religion  he  pleases :  but  as  far  as  their  decrees  can  reach, 
they  have  established,  not  deism  only,  but  atheism  and  materialism. 
For  these  assertions  I  have  their  own  decrees.  In  their  decree  respect- 
ing burials,  they  say,  they  "  acknowledge  no  other  doctrine,  except  that 
of  national  sovereignty  and  omnipotence.''''  If  I  understand  this,  it  denies 
the  being  of  a  God.  They  ordain,  that  deceased  persons  shall  be  car- 
ried to  the  place  of  burial,  covered  with  a  pall,  on  which  shall  be  depict- 
ed sleep;  under  the  shade  of  the  trees  in  the  field,  a  statue  shall  be  erect- 
ed, representing  sleep;  and  on  the  gatp  of  the  field,  this  inscription — 
"  death  in  an  everlasting  sleep.''''  This  is  an  explicit  denial  of  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul,  and  in  effect  the  establishment  of  materialism  by 
law.* 


•  This  was  not  an  act  of  the  Convention,  but  an  order  of  the  commissary  Fouche, 
at  Nevers,  in  October,  17D3.  See  Minerva,  March  12,  and  April  8, 1794.  See  also 
Life  of  Col.  Trumbull,  Appendix,  p.  351. 


•Sk^ 


REVOLUTION    IN   FRANCE.  11 

The  church  of  Notre  Dame  is  converted  into  the  temple  of  reason ; 
a  colossal  monument  is  erected  in  honor  of  the  day,  when  reason  tri- 
umphed over  what  they  call  fanaticism ;  and  festivals  are  ordained  to 
celebrate  the  memorable  epochs  of  important  changes  in  the  govern- 
ment and  religion  in  France.  A  great  number  of  the  clergy  have  pub- 
licly renounced  their  profession,  declaring  their  belief  that  their  ancient 
religion  was  superstition  and  error,  and  that  the  only  true  religion  is  the 
practice  of  justice  and  moral  virtue. 

This  account  of  the  proceedings  in  France  exhibits,  in  a  luminous 
point  of  view,  the  singular  contexture  of  the  human  mind  ;  now  depress- 
ed with  chimerical  horrors  ;  demons,  ghosts,  and  a  God  in  terrors,  arm- 
ed with  vengeance,  and  hurling  nine  tenths  of  mankind  to  the  bottom- 
less pit :  now,  elevated  on  the  pinions  of  a  subtil  philosophy,  men  soar 
above  all  these  bugbears ;  revelation,  piety,  immortality,  and  all  the 
Christian's  hopes  are  rejected  as  phantoms  ;  the  Supreme  Jehovah  is 
reasoned  or  ridiculed  out  of  existence,  and  in  his  place  is  substituted 
the  omnipotence  of  national  sovereignty. 

Vain  men  !  idle  philosophy  !  I  will  not  attempt  to  expatiate  on  the 
pernicious  effects  of  such  mistaken  and  misdirected  reason.  A  sorrow- 
ful prediction  of  woes  that  must  fall  upon  the  nation,  thus  set  afloat  on 
the  wide  ocean  of  doubt,  and  tossed  between  the  ancient  hopes  of  immor- 
tality, and  the  modern  legislative  assurance  of  everlasting  sleep  in  anni- 
hilation, would  be  derided  as  the  cant  of  bigotry  ;  the  whining  lamenta- 
tions of  interested  priestcraft.  But  I  will  meet  your  philosophy  upon 
your  own  ground  ;  and  demonstrate,  by  the  very  decrees  which  demol- 
ish the  ancient  superstition,  that  you  yourselves  are  the  most  bigoted 
men  in  existence. 

It  is  the  remark  of  a  great  philosopher,  whose  opinions  I  am  sure  you 
will  respect,  that  the  mind  of  man  is  subject  to  certain  unaccountable 
terrors  and  apprehensions,  proceeding  from  an  unhappy  situation  of  af- 
fairs, from  ill  health,  or  a  melancholy  disposition.  This  is  the  origin  of 
superstition  and  priestcraft.  The  mind  of  man  is  also  susceptible  of  an 
unaccountable  elevation  and  presumption,  arising  from  success,  luxuri- 
ant health,  strong  spirits,  or  a  bold  confident  disposition.  This  is  the 
source  of  enthusiasm.     Hume's  Essays,  Vol.  I,  p.  75. 

I  will  not  controvert  this  explanation  of  the  two  most  remarkable 
principles  in  the  mind.  Nor  will  I  wholly  deny  the  conclusion  he 
draws,  that  superstition  is  most  favorable  to  slavery,  and  enthusiasm 
to  liberty.  But  I  will  go  further  in  this  question  than  he  did,  and 
further  than  you  will  at  first  admit  to  be  just — but  it  is  a  position  war- 
ranted by  all  history  and  perpetual  observation,  that  if  superstition  and 
enthusiasm  are  not  essentially  the  same  thing,  they  at  least  produce 
effects,  in  many  respects,  exactly  similar.  They  always  lead  men  into 
error. 

Superstition  and  enthusiasm  operate  by  different  means  and  direct 
the  mind  to  different  objects ;  but  they  agree  in  this  respect,  they  imply 
or  produce  an  excessive  improper  attachment  to  certain  objects,  usually 
objects  of  little  real  consequence.  They  are  equally  the  humble  vo- 
taries of  some  deity,  though  each  has  a  different  one  and  worships  him 
in  her  own  peculiar  mode.  From  the  only  regular  body  of  deists  in 
the  universe,  as  Mr.  Hume   calls  the   disciples  of  Confucius  ;    from 


12  EEVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE. 

the  exalted  philosophers  of  Greece  and  Rome,  Plato,  Pythagoras  and 
Cicero  ;  or  from  the  still  more  refined  philosophers,  the  noble  disciples 
of  reason,  the  members  of  the  National  Convention  of  France,  down 
to  the  lowest  bigot  that  drones  out  a  lifeless  existence  over  his  beads 
and  his  crucifix  in  some  dark  monastic  cell,  there  is  one  single  prin- 
ciple of  the  human  mind  operating  steadily  to  produce  these  different 
characters :  this  principle  is  a  strong,  universal  and  irresistible  dispo- 
sition to  attach  itself  to  some  object  or  some  system  of  belief  which 
shall  be  a  kind  of  idol  to  be  worshiped  in  preference  to  all  others.  The 
object  only  is  varied  ;  the  principle  eternally  the  same.  The  prin- 
ciple springs  from  the  passions  of  the  mind,  and  can  not  be  annihilated 
without  extinguishing  the  passions  ;  which  is  impossible.  When  a 
gloomy  mind  clings  to  its  priests  or  its  altars,  it  is  called  superstition. 
When  a  bold  mind  and  ardent  spii'its  rise  above  groveling  objects, 
and  embrace  spiritual  delights,  with  raptures  and  transports,  it  is  called 
enthusiasm  or  fanaticism.  When  a  long  series  of  reflection  and  rea- 
soning has  cooled  or  moderated  the  passions,  the  mind  is  governed  less 
hy  feeling  and  more  by  argum,ent ;  the  errors  of  superstition  and  en- 
thusiasm are  perceived  and  despised  ;  the  mind  fixes  itself  upon  a  theory 
of  imaginary  truth,  between  the  extremes  of  error ;  and  this  is  pro- 
nounced reason  and  philosophy.  That  this  reason  is  not  truth  itself, 
nor  an  infallible  standard  of  truth,  is  obvious  :  for  no  two  men  agree 
what  it  is,  what  its  nature,  extent  or  limits.  No  matter ;  superstition 
and  enthusiasm  are  beat  down ;  reason  is  exalted  upon  a  throne,  tem- 
ples are  erected  to  the  goddess,  and  festivals  instituted  to  celebrate  her 
coronation.  Then  begins  the  reign  of  passion  ;  the  moment  reason  is 
seated  upon  her  throne,  the  passions  are  called  in  to  support  her. 
Pride  says,  /  have  trampled  down  superstition,  that  foe  to  truth  and 
happiness — I  have  exalted  reason  to  the  throne  ;  /  am  right — every 
thing  else  is  wrong.  Obey  the  goddess  reason,  is  the  great  command  ; 
and  woe  to  the  man  that  rejects  her  authority.  Reason  is  indeed  the 
nominal  prince,  but  the  passions  are  her  ministers,  and  dictate  her  de- 
crees. Thus  what  begins  in  calm  philosophy,  ends  in  a  most  super- 
stitious attachment  to  a  particular  object  of  its  own  creation — the  god- 
dess reason  is  at  last  maintained  by  pride,  obstinacy,  bigotry,  and  to 
use  a  correct  phrase,  a  blind  superstitious  enthusiasm. 

The  history  of  men  is  one  tissue  of  facts,  confirmatory  of  these  ob- 
servations. The  Egyptians  adored  certain  animals ;  and  to  injure  a 
cat  in  Egypt,  was  a  crime  no  less  enormous  than  to  pull  down  a  liberty 
cap,  to  use  the  Christian  era,  or  wear  abroad  the  robes  of  a  priest  in 
France ;  it  was  sacrilege.  When  we  are  told  by  credible  historians 
that  the  Egyptians,  when  a  house  was  on  fire,  took  more  pains  to  save 
the  cats,  than  the  house,  we  stare  and  wonder  how  men  could  ever  be 
so  weak  and  stupid  as  to  regard  a  cat  as  a  sacred  animal.  But  is  not 
the  cap  of  liberty  now  regarded  with  similar  veneration  ?  Would  not 
an  insult  offered  to  it  be  resented  and  call  down  the  vengeance  of  its 
votaries  ?  How  is  this  ?  Why  the  answer  is  easy — the  Egyptians 
venerated  a  cat  and  a  cow,  and  our  modern  idolaters  venerate  a  liberty 
cap.  The  passion  of  the  Egyptians  will  be  called  superstition  per- 
haps ;  the  passion  of  our  people,  enthusiasm.  But  it  is  the  object  that 
is  changed,  and  not  the  principle.     Our  people  are  perpetually  exclaim- 


*  REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE.  Id 

ing,  "  Liberty  is  the  goddess  we  adore,''''  and  a  cap  is  the  emblem  of 
this  goddess.  Yet  in  fact,  there  is  no  more  connection  between  liberty 
and  a  cap,  than  between  the  Egyptian  deity  Isis,  and  just  notions  of 
God ;  nor  is  it  less  an  act  of  superstition  to  dance  round  a  cap  or  a 
pole  in  honor  of  liberty,  than  it  was  in  Egypt  to  sacrifice  a  bullock 
to  Isis. 

The  Greeks  were  a  learned  nation ;  but  they  had  their  Delphic  ora- 
cles, whose  responses  were  regarded  as  inspiration.  The  Romans 
were  more  superstitious,  and  were  governed  in  public  and  private 
affairs,  by  the  appearances  of  the  entrails  of  beasts,  the  flight  of  birds, 
and  other  omens.  Both  these  nations  were  superstitious  ;  that  is,  they 
believed  their  fate  to  be  connected  with  certain  religious  rites ;  they 
placed  confidence  in  certain  supposed  deities  or  events ;  when  in  fact 
there  was  no  connection  at  all  between  the  cause  and  effect,  but  what 
existed  in  o'pinion.  The  Pythian  god  in  Greece  knew  nothing  of  future 
events ;  the  auspices  in  Rome  had  no  connection  with  the  fate  of  those 
who  consulted  them,  but  the  people  believed  in  those  consultations,  and 
according  to  the  result,  were  inspired  with  confidence  or  depressed 
with  apprehensions.  There  were  philosophers  indeed  in  those  en- 
lightened nations,  who  rejected  the  authority  of  their  divinities.  Cicero 
says,  in  his  days,  the  Delphic  oracle  had  become  contemptible.  De- 
mosthenes declared  publicly,  the  oracle  had  been  gained  over  to  the 
interest  of  Philip.  These  and  many  others  were  the  deists  of  Greece 
and  Rome ;  the  Humes  and  Voltaires  of  antiquity.  But  they  never 
had  the  courage  or  the  inclination  to  abolish  the  religion  of  their  coun- 
trymen— they  treated  the  fabled  divinities  of  their  countiy  with  more 
respect  than  the  Jacobin  club  has  paid  to  the  founder  of  Christianity. 
At  the  same  time,  while  they  indulged  their  fellow  citizens  in  their 
own  worship,  they  wrought  out  of  their  own  imagination,  some  airy 
deity,  some  fine  subtil  theory  of  philosophy,  which  they  adored  with 
the  superstition  of  bigots.  It  is  idle,  it  is  false,  that  these  philosophers 
had  refined  their  ideas  above  all  error  and  fanaticism — they  soared 
above  the  absurdities  of  material  deities,  the  lares  and  penates  of  the 
vulgar ;  but  they  framed  ethereal  divinities,  and  spent  their  lives  in 
paying  homage  to  these  fictions  of  imaginations. 

In  short,  the  only  advantage  they  had  over  vulgar  minds  was,  that 
common  people  were  content  to  worship  the  gods  of  the  country, 
already  framed  to  their  hands  ;  while  the  pride  of  each  philosopher  was 
busy  in  creating  deities  suited  to  his  particular  fancy. 

When  Christianity  became  the  religion  of  Rome,  many  of  the  pagan 
rites  were  incorporated,  and  some  of  the  temples  and  deities  brought 
into  use  in  the  Christian  religion.  The  use  of  incense  or  perfumes, 
holy  water,  lamps,  and  votive  offerings  in  churches,  are  pagan  cere- 
monies retained  in  the  Romish  church.  In  lieu  of  the  images  of 
heathen  deities,  Jupiter,  Hercules  or  Bacchus,  the  Christians  substituted 
the  statues  of  saints,  martyrs  and  heroes ;  or  else  preserved  the  old  im- 
ages, giving  them  only  a  different  dress.  The  Pantheon  of  ancient 
Rome  was  reconsecrated  by  Boniface  IV.  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  and 
all  the  saints. 

What  is  all  this  ?  the  Christians  pretended  to  abolish  and  exterminate 
pagan  superstition — they  only  changed  the  name,  and  the  objects  to 


14  REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE. 

which  veneration  was  to  be  paid.     Instead  of  worshiping  and  sacrificing 
to  Bacchus,  the  new  converts  adored  the  figure  of  a  saint. 

The  Roman  had  a  celebrated  festival,  called  Saturnalia  in  honor  of 
Saturn ;  this  festival  found  its  way  into  ancient  Scandinavia,  among 
our  pagan  ancestors,  by  whom  it  was  new  modeled  or  corrupted,  being 
kept  at  the  winter  solstice.  The  night  on  which  it  was  kept  was  called 
mother-night,  as  that  which  produced  all  the  rest ;  and  the  festival  was 
called  lule  or  Yule.  The  Christians,  not  being  able  to  abolish  the 
feast,  changed  its  object,  gave  it  the  name  of  Christmas,  and  kept  it 
in  honor  of  Jesus  Christ,  although  the  ancient  name  yule  was  retained 
in  some  parts  of  Scotland,  till  within  a  century.  (Mallet,  North  Antiq., 
Vol.  I,  130.  Cowel,  voc.  Yule.)  What  is  the  deduction  from  these 
facts  ?  This  certainly,  that  men  have  uniformly  had  a  high  veneration 
for  some  person  or  deity,  real  or  imaginary  ;  the  Romans  for  Saturn, 
the  Goths  for  the  mother-night  of  the  year,  and  the  Christians  for  the 
founder  of  their  religion.  The  Christians  have  the  advantage  over  the 
pagans  in  appropriating  the  feast  to  a  nobler  object ;  but  the  passion  is 
the  same,  and  the  joy,  the  feasting,  and  the  presents  that  have  marked 
the  festival,  are  nearly  the  same  among  pagans  and  Christians. 

Let  us  then  see  whether  the  National  Convention  of  France  have  suc- 
ceeded in  exterminating  superstition  and  fanaticism ;  and  with  them, 
their  offspring,  persecution. 

They  have  indeed  abolished  the  Christian  Sabbath,  because  it  was 
one  of  the  institutions  of  superstition  and  the  support  of  error,  bigotry 
and  priestcraft.  But  with  the  absurdity  and  inconsistency  that  ever  ac- 
companies fanaticism,  they  have  established  a  similar  institution,  under 
a  different  name  ;  instead  of  a  Christian  Sabbath  once  in  seven  days, 
they  have  ordained  a  political  Sabbath  once  in  ten  days.  The  object 
only  is  changed,  while  the  uses  of  such  a  day  are  acknowledged  by 
the  Convention  themselves ;  and  in  spite  of  their  omnipotence,  the  na- 
tion will  appropriate  that  or  some  other  day  to  nearly  the  same  purposes. 

They  have  abolished  the  Christian  era,  and  substituted  the  epoch  of 
the  abolition  of  monarchy,  or  what  is  the  sanne  thing,  the  foundation  of 
the  Republic.  And  what  do  they  gain  by  this  change .?  merely  the 
trouble  of  introducing  confusion  and  perplexity  into  their  own  mode  of 
reckoning  time,  during  the  present  generation,  and  into  their  negotia- 
tions with  other  powers.  The  era  itself  is  a  thing  of  no  kind  of  con- 
sequence ;  it  is  not  of  the  value  of  a  straw ;  but  when  this  indifferent 
thing  is  established  as  a  common  point  of  reckoning  time  among  a  great 
number  of  surrounding  nations,  it  becomes  of  great  moment,  and  the 
change  of  it  marks  a  contempt  of  common  utility  and  a  superstitious 
regard  to  the  period  of  the  Revolution,  or  rather  the  era  of  their  own 
triumph  over  their  opposers,  that  is  equal  to  the  ancient  respect  for  the 
Delphic  oracle,  or  the  modern  veneration  for  a  papal  bull.  The  object 
only  is  changed  ;  the  passion  is  the  same. 

They  have  also  annihilated  the  national  worship,  and  of  course  a 
great  number  of  holidays.  But  they  have  decreed  a  most  magnificent 
and  splendid  festival,  to  be  celebrated  once  in  four  years,  in  honor  of 
the  Republic.  What  is  this  but  a  superstitious  veneration  for  a  new 
era,  instead  of  the  old  ones .''  But  what  is  singular  in  this  institution  is, 
that  it  Li  professedly  copied  from  the  celebration  of  the  Olympic  games 


REVOLUTION    IN   FRANCE.  1S» 

in  Greece.  What  then  is  become  of  the  Convention's  reason  and  phi- 
losophy, which  was  to  buoy  them  above  vulgar  prejudices  ?  Do  they 
in  this  instance,  exhibit  proofs  of  exalted  reason  ?  Is  it  less  a  prejudice 
to  venerate  the  Greek  Olympiads,  than  the  Christian  Sabbath,  or  Chris- 
tian era  ?  Let  Danton  and  Robespierre  answer  this  question,  or  blush 
for  their  philosophy. 

The  Convention  have  also  rejected  the  national  faith,  and  sanctioned, 
with  a  decree,  the  doctrines  of  deism  and  materialism.  This  is  another 
sublime  effort  of  their  Grecian  philosophy  to  annihilate  superstition  and 
bigotry.  But  in  the  moment  they  are  shunning  Scylla,  they  are  ship- 
wrecked on  Charybdis.  It  was  not  sufficient  to  destroy  one  faith  ;  but 
they  proceeded  to  establish  another.  They  erect  a  statue  to  sleep,  and 
on  the  gates  of  their  burying  fields,  ordain  this  inscription,  "  Death  in  an 
everlasting  Sleep."  Laugh  not,  ye  refined  sages,  at  the  poor  ignorant 
Greeks,  who,  lost  and  bewildered  in  the  mazes  of  doubt,  with  more 
honesty  than  yourselves,  acknowledged  their  ignorance,  and  erected  an 
altar  to  the  unknown  God.  St.  Paul  informed  that  venerable  body  of 
sages,  the  Athenian  Areopagus,  that  this  was  superstition ;  yet  the 
inscription  on  the  altar  at  Athens,  and  that  on  the  gates  of  the  burying 
places  in  France,  proceeded  from  equal  ignorance,  and  the  devotion 
paid  to  the  statue  of  sleep  will  be  as  blind,  as  headstrong,  and  as  marked 
with  superstition,  as  the  worship  of  the  unknown  God  in  Athens. 

The  Convention,  in  their  zeal  for  equalizing  men,  have  with  all  their 
exalted  reason,  condescended  to  the  puerility  of  legislating  even  upon 
names.  That  they  should  abolish  titles  of  distinction,  together  with 
the  privileges  of  the  nobility  and  clergy,  was  natural ;  but  that  the 
common  titles  of  mere  civility  and  respect  should  be  attacked  was  as- 
tonishing to  indifferent  spectators,  who  had  expected  their  proceedings 
to  be  marked  with  dignity.  The  vulgar  title  of  address,  Monsieur  and 
Madame,  whatever  might  have  been  their  original  sense,  had  become 
mere  names  of  civility,  implying  no  distinction,  and  applied  equally  to 
all  classes  of  people.  They  were  literally  terms  of  equality  ;  for  when 
A  addressed  B  with  the  appellation  Monsieur,  B  answered  him  with 
the  same  address ;  denoting  an  equality  of  standing  and  a  mutuality  of 
respect. 

Yet  these  harmless  titles,  which  had  no  more  connection  with  gov- 
ernment, than  the  chattering  of  birds,  became  the  subject  of  grave  le- 
gislative discussion,  and  the  use  of  them  was  formally  abolished.  And 
what  did  the  Convention  substitute  in  their  place  ?  Why  the  awkward 
term  citizen,  which  is  in  fact  a  title  of  distinction,  denoting  a  man  who 
is  free  of  a  city,  and  enjoys  rights  distinct  from  his  fellow  inhabitants; 
or  at  least  one  that  has  a  legal  residence  in  a  countiy,  and  in  conse- 
quence of  it,  enjoys  some  rights  or  privileges,  that  are  not  common  to 
all  its  people.  In  proof  of  this  I  need  only  suggest,  that  in  the  United 
States,  and  I  believe  in  all  other  countries,  certainly  in  France,  legal 
provision  is  made  for  acquiring  the  rights  of  citizenship.*  Rejlect,  ye 
philosophic  legislators,  and  be  ashamed  of  your  contradictions. 

*  By  the  present  constitution  of  France,  citizenship  is  lost  by  naturalization  in 
a  foreign  country.  If  Danton  himself  should  come  to  America  and  be  natural- 
ized, he  would  no  longer  be  a  French  citizen.  Mr.  is  a  mere  title  of  civility,  ap- 
plicable to  alt  men,  in  all  places,  and  under  all  circumstances ;  the  most  equalizing 
title  in  the  French  or  English  language. 


16  EEVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE. 

The  Convention  have  also  abolished  the  insignia  of  rank,  civil  and 
ecclesiastical.  Even  a  priest  can  not  wear  his  robes,  except  in  the 
temples.  But  it  was  not  sufficient  to  reduce  all  ancient  orders ;  they 
established  another  distinction,  which  was  represented  by  the  cockade 
of  liberty.  Enthusiasm  had  only  taken  down  one  order,  to  put  up 
another ;  and  no  sooner  was  the  order  of  liberty  instituted,  than  its 
members  assumed  an  arrogant  imperious  behavior:  they  esteemed 
themselves  better  than  their  fellow  citizens ;  the  cockade  became  a 
badge  of  despotism ;  every  one  who  would  not  join  the  order,  and  go 
to  every  excess  in  their  measures,  was  denounced  as  a  traitor,  and  a 
man  must  wear  the  national  cockade,  or  be  massacred.  Yet  there  is  not 
the  smallest  connection  between  a  cockade  and  liberty^  except  what  ex- 
ists in  the  fanaticism  of  the  order.  It  is  superstition  of  the  rankest 
kind  ;  and  precisely  of  the  same  nature  as  that  which  fired  millions  of 
bigots  to  rally  under  the  banners  of  the  cross,  in  the  twelfth  and  thir- 
teenth centuries,  and  march,  under  Peter  the  hermit,  to  recover  the 
Holy  Land  from  infidels.  The  cross  in  one  case  had  the  same  effect 
in  inspiring  enthusiasm,  that  a  cockade  has  in  the  other.  Peter  the 
hermit,  and  the  Jacobins  of  France,  equally  acknowledged  the  princi- 
ples and  the  passions  of  the  human  heart.  To  accomplish  their  pur- 
poses they  made  use  of  the  same  means ;  they  addressed  themselves  to 
the  pEissions  of  the  multitude,  and  wrought  them  up  into  enthusiasm. 

To  complete  the  system  of  reason  which  is  to  prevail  in  France,  in 
lieu  of  ancient  errors  and  absurdities,  all  the  statues  of  kings  and  queens, 
together  with  busts,  medallions,  and  every  ensign  of  royalty,  nobility  or 
priesthood,  are  ordered  to  be  annihilated.  Even  the  statue  of  Henry 
IV,  on  the  New  Bridge ;  a  monument  erected  to  the  most  patriotic  prince 
that  ever  graced  the  royal  diadem  ;  who  had  projected  a  plan  of  uni- 
versal peace  in  Europe,  and  who,  had  he  not  fallen  prematurely  by  the 
hand  of  an  assassin,  would  perhaps  have  done  more  for  the  happiness 
of  society,  than  all  the  philosophers  France  ever  produced  ;  even  his 
statue  could  not  escape  the  philosophic  rage  for  innovation.  The  statue 
is  to  be  annihilated,  and  in  its  place,  at  the  motion  of  David  the  painter, 
a  colossal  monument  is  decreed  to  be  raised  on  the  bridge,  to  transmit 
to  posterity  the  victory  of  nations  over  kings,  and  of  reason  ower  fanat- 
icism. Yes,  philosophers,  a  noble  victory  this  !  But  you  forget  that 
this  very  decree  is  the  height  of  political  fanaticism.  The  monument 
is  changed  with  the  object  of  fanaticism  ;  and  this  is  all  the  difference 
between  you  and  the  admirers  of  Henry  IV,  who  erected  the  statue. 

Marat  also  has  a  monument  erected  to  his  memory,  in  the  Pantheon ! 
And  who  was  Marat  ?  A  Prussian  by  birth  ;  by  profession,  a  journal- 
ist, who  lived  by  publishing  libels  on  the  moderate  men  who  opposed 
the  Jacobin  club ;  by  nature,  a  bloodthirsty  wretch,  the  instigator  of 
massacres,  whose  cruelty  and  baseness  inspired  a  woman  with  courage 
to  assassinate  him.  To  such  a  pitch  has  the  fanaticism  of  these  phi- 
losophers carried  them  in  this  instance,  that  they  have  actually  dis- 
pensed with  the  decree  which  denies  the  honors  of  the  Pantheon  to  pat- 
riots, until  they  have  been  dead  ten  years,  and  in  favor  of  his  extraor- 
dinary merits,  Marat  was  deified  a  few  months  after  his  death. 

The  refined  imitators  of  the  Greek  philosophers  have  gone  beyond 
their  predecessors,  in  a  stupid  veneration  for  departed  heroes ;  and  if 


REVOLUTION   IN   FRANCE.  17 

the  present  fanaticism  should  continue  a  few  years,  they  will  fill  their 
new  Pantheon  with  canonized  Jacobins. 

The  same  blind  devotion  to  every  thing  ancient  has  led  these  super- 
stitious reformers  into  the  most  ridiculous  changes  of  names.  Church 
is  a  relic  of  Christian  bigotry — the  name  therefore  is  rejected,  and  in 
its  place  the  Latin  word  temple  is  substituted.  This  in  France  is  philo- 
sophical !  But  what  is  more  extraordinary  is,  that  in  the  moment  when 
the  modem  calendar  was  abolished,  and  new  divisions  of  time  instituted, 
and  even  the  harmless  names  of  the  months  changed  because  the  old 
calendar  was  the  work  of  a  pope  and  a  relict  of  priestcraft :  nay,  at  the 
time  these  wise  and  sublime  reformers  were  abolishing,  not  only  super- 
stition, but  even  a  belief  in  any  superior  being ;  they  themselves  se- 
questered a  building  for  the  express  purpose  of  immortalizing  men,  and 
even  gave  it  the  Grecian  name  Pantheon,  which  signifies  the  habitation 
of  all  the  gods.  Such  perpetual  contradictions,  ^uch  a  series  of  puerile 
innovations,  are  without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  revolutions :  and 
while  these  regenerators  of  a  great  nation  believe  themselves  the  devo- 
tees of  reason  and  philosophy,  and  exult  in  their  supereminent  attain- 
ments, they  appear  to  the  surrounding  world  of  indifferent  spectators, 
as  weak,  as  blind  and  as  fanatical,  as  a  caravan  of  Mohammedan  pil- 
grims, wading  through  immense  deserts  of  sufibcating  sands,  to  pay 
their  respects  to  the  tomb  of  the  Prophet. 

It  is  remarkable  also,  that  with  professions  of  the  most  boundless 
liberality  of  sentiment,  and  with  an  utter  abhorrence  of  bigotry  and 
tyranny,  these  philosophers  have  become  the  most  implacable  persecu- 
tors of  opinion.  They  despise  all  religious  opinions  ;  they  are  indiffer- 
ent what  worship  is  adopted  by  individuals ;  at  the  same  time,  they  are 
establishing  atheism  by  law.  They  reject  one  system,  to  enforce  ano- 
ther. This  is  not  all ;  they  pursue  with  unrelenting  cruelty,  all  who 
differ  from  them  on  political  subjects.  The  friends  of!  a  limited  monar- 
chy, to  the  constitution  of  1791,  to  a  federal  government,  however  hon- 
est, fair  and  candid,  all  fall  before  the  Jacobins.  The  Marquis  La  Fay- 
ette, that  unimpeachable  hero  and  patriot,  fell  a  sacrifice  to  his  integ- 
rity. He  had  sworn  to  maintain  the  constitution  of  1791 — he  respected 
his  oath — and  was  driven  into  exile  and  a  dungeon.  The  Jacobins  also 
swore  to  maintain  that  constitution — they  perjured  themselves — and 
now  rule  triumphant.  Dumourier,  the  ablest  general  that  has  figured 
in  France  this  century,  after  a  series  of  unexampled  victories,  fell  a 
sacrifice  to  Jacobin  jealousy.  The  moment  the  Jacobin  club  felt  their 
superiority,  they  commenced  tyrants  and  persecutors ;  and  from  the 
execution  of  Mr.  Delassart,  the  first  victim  of  their  vengeance,  to  that 
of  Mr.  Brissot  and  his  adherents,  a  series  of  persecution  for  mere  dif- 
ference of  opinion  has  been  exhibited  in  France,  that  has  never  before 
been  equaled.  The  Jacobins  differ  from  the  clergy  of  the  dark  ages  in 
this — the  clergy  persecuted  for  heresy  in  religion — the  Jacobins,  for 
heresy  in  politics.  The  ruling  faction  is  always  orthodox — the  minor- 
ity always  heterodox.  Totally  immaterial  is  it,  what  is  the  subject  of 
controversy ;  or  in  what  age  or  country  the  parties  live.  The  ob- 
ject may  change,  but  the  imperious  spirit  of  triumphant  faction  is 
always  the  same.  It  is  only  to  revive  the  stale  plea  of  necessity ;  the 
state  or  the  church  is  in  danger  from  opinions ;  then  the  rack,  the 

3 


^        Kir 


18  REVOLTTTION    IN    FRANCE. 

Stake  or  the  guillotin  must  crush  the  heresy — ^the  heretics  must  be  exter- 
minated. ' 

It  was  the  language  of  the  pagan  emperors  who  persecuted  the 
Christians ;  "  these  sectaries  must  be  destroyed — their  doctrines  are 
fatal  to  our  power."  It  was  the  language  of  the  popes  and  cardinals, 
who  instigated  the  persecution  of  the  Hussites,  Wickliffites,  Lutherans 
and  Calvinists ;  "  these  reformers  are  heretics  who  are  dangerous  to  the 
true  church,  they  must  be  destroyed ;  their  doctrines  must  be  exter- 
minated ;  it  is  the  cause  of  God."  It  is  the  same  language,  which  the 
barbarous  followers  of  Mohammed  employed  and  still  employ  to  justify 
the  enslaving  of  Christians.  The  same  is  the  language  of  the  British 
acts  of  Parliament,  which  lay  all  dissenters  from  the  established  church 
under  severe  restraints  and  disabilities.  It  is  the  present  language  of 
the  court  of  inquisition  in  Spain  and  Portugal — it  is  the  language  of  the 
Jacobin  faction  in  France,  with  the  change  only  of  the  word  liberty  for 
church.  The  mountain  exclaim,  "  liberty  is  in  danger  from  traitors.'''* 
But  when  we  examine  the  proofs,  nothing  appears  to  warrant  the  charge, 
but  the  single  circumstance  that  these  dangerous  men  belonged  to  ano- 
ther party ;  they  were  acknowledged  republicans,  but  differed  in  opin- 
ion, as  to  the  precise  form  of  government,  best  calculated  to  secure 
liberty.  Yet  being  Girondists,  another  party,  they  are  wrong ;  they  are 
dangerous  ;  they  must  be  exterminated.  This  is  merely  the  result  of  fac- 
tion ;  for  it  is  now,  and  probably  will  forever  remain  a  mere  speculative 
point,  whether  Danton  or  Brissot  was  right ;  that  is,  whether  a  federal 
or  an  indivisible  republic  is  the  best  form  of  government  for  France. 
But  power,  and  not  argument  or  experience,  has  decided  the  question  for 
the  present.  It  is  the  precise  mode  in  which  the  Roman  emperors  de- 
cided Christianity  to  be  dangerous — the  precise  mode  in  which  the  Chi- 
nese emperors  reasoned  to  justify  the  expulsion  of  Christians  from  their 
dominions  ;  and  p.  mode  which  a  violent  ruling  faction  always  employs 
to  silence  opposition.  As  a  temporary  measure,  it  is  always  effectual : 
but  I  will  venture  to  affirm,  that  such  vindictive  remedies  for  political 
and  religious  contentions  are,  in  every  instance,  unwarrantable.  In  reli- 
gious affairs,  they  proceed  from  bigotry,  or  a  blind  zeal  for  a  particular 
creed.  In  political  contests,  an  indiscriminate  denunciation  of  opposers, 
and  the  infliction  of  death  upon  slight  evidence,  or  mere  suspicion,  can 
proceed  only  from  savage  hearts,  or  the  mad  rancor  of  party  and  faction. 

MORALITY. 

However  necessary  might  be  the  revolution  in  France,  and  however 
noble  the  object,  such  great  changes  and  a  long  war  will  have  an  effect 
on  the  moral  character  of  the  nation,  which  is  deeply  to  be  deplored. 
All  wars  have,  if  I  may  use  a  new  but  emphatic  word,  a  demoralizing* 
tendency ;  but  the  revolution  in  France,  in  addition  to  the  usual  influ- 
ence of  war,  is  attended  with  a  total  change  in  the  minds  of  the  people. 
They  are  released,  not  only  from  the  ordinary  restraints  of  law,  but 
from  all  their  former  habits  of  thinking.     From  the  fetters  of  a  deba- 

•  This  is  the  first  time  this  word  was  ever  used  in  English.  It  is  now  common 
in  the  United  Slates  and  in  England. 


REVOLUTION   IN   FRANCE.  19 

sing  religious  system,  the  people  are  let  loose  in  the  wide  field  of  men- 
tal licentiousness  ;  and  as  men  naturally  run  from  one  extreme  to  ano- 
ther, the  French  will  probably  rush  into  the  wildest  vagaries  of  opinion, 
both  in  their  political  and  moral  creeds.  The  decree  of  the  Convention 
authorizing  divorces,  upon  the  application  of  either  party,  alledging 
only  unsuitableness  of  temper,  hereby  offering  allurements  to  infidelity 
and  domestic  broils,  is  a  singular  proof  of  the  little  regard  in  which  the 
morals  of  the  nation  are  held  by  the  ruling  party.  The  efforts  made 
by  the  Convention  to  exterminate  every  thing  that  looks  like  imposing 
restraint  upon  the  passions,  by  the  fear  of  a  supreme  being  and  future 
punishments,  are  a  most  extraordinary  experiment  in  government,  to 
ascertain  whether  nations  can  exist  in  peace,  order  and  harmony,  with- 
out any  such  restraints.  It  is  an  experiment  to  prove  that  impressions 
of  a  supreme  being  and  a  divine  providence,  which  men  have  hitherto 
considered  as  natural,  are  the  illusions  of  imagination  ;  the  effect  of  a 
wrong  education.  It  is  an  experiment  to  try  whether  atheism  and  mate- 
rialism, as  articles  of  national  creed,  will  not  render  men  more  happy 
in  society  than  a  belief  in  a  God,  a  Providence,  and  the  immortality  of 
the  soul.     The  experiment  is  new  ;  it  is  bold  ;  it  is  astonishing. 

In  respect  to  manners  also,  the  effects  of  the  war  in  France  must  be 
deplorable.  War,  carried  on  between  foreign  nations,  on  the  most 
humane  principles,  has  a  powerful  tendency  to  uncivilize  those  who 
are  immediately  concerned  in  it.  It  lets  loose  the  malignant  passions 
of  hatred  and  revenge,  which  in  time  of  peace  are  laid  under  the 
restraints  of  law  and  good  breeding.  But  in  addition  to  the  ordinary 
uncivilizing  tendency  of  war,  the  present  contest  in  France  is  carried 
on  with  the  implacable  fury  of  domestic  rage,  and  the  barbarity  of 
assassination.  Hostilities  have  raged  in  almost  every  part  of  that  ex- 
tensive republic,  and  have  been  inflamed  by  faction,  insurrection  and 
treason.  The  Parisians,  aided  by  the  Marseillois,  massacred  thousands 
on  the  10th  of  August,  and  2d  and  3d  of  September,  1792 ;  and  great 
part  of  the  victims  of  popular  fury  fell,  merely  because  they  were  sus- 
pected, without  the  slightest  proof  of  guilt.  The  like  scenes  were  ex- 
hibited on  a  smaller  scale  at  Lyons,  and  in  some  other  parts  of  the 
country.  The  summary  vengeance  taken  on  the  insurgents  in  various 
parts,  and  especially  on  the  rebels  at  Lyons  and  Toulon,  must  have 
accustomed  great  bodies  of  people  to  scenes  of  cruelty,  and  rendered 
them  unfeeling  toward  their  enemies.  But  the  sanguinary  executions 
of  persons  condemned  by  the  revolutionary  tribunals  at  Paris,  and  in 
various  cities  of  France,  must  have  rendered  the  populace  extremely 
ferocious.  In  many  of  the  calamitous  proceedings  of  the  triumphant 
party  in  France,  there  has  been  displayed  a  rancor  of  malice  and  cru- 
elty, that  reminds  of  us  savages ;  and  we  can  scarcely  believe  these 
things  done  by  a  nation  unquestionably  the  most  polite  in  the  world. 
The  facts  however  can  not  be  denied  ;  and  they  illustrate  my  remarks, 
as  to  the  effects  of  war  on  the  moral  character  of  men. 

If  these  remarks  then  are  just,  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  the  French 
nation,  will  for  a  few  years,  be  so  ferocious  and  licentious,  as  to  render 
it  extremely  difficult  to  reduce  them  to  a  subordination  to  law.  The 
virulence  of  party  we  know  in  America  ;  but  in  France,  the  spirits  of 
men  are  still  more  exasperated  against  each  other,  and  party  rage  will 


20  REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE. 

not,  for  a  long  time,  be  repressed  without  frequent  bloodshed.  If  the 
odious  distinction  of  whig  and  tory  still  exists  in  America,  and  fre- 
quently calls  forth  abuse,  how  much  more  will  party  spirit  prevail  in 
France  during  the  present  generation ! 

It  then  naturally  occurs  as  a  question,  what  will  be  the  consequences 
of  the  abolition  of  Christianity,  or  the  national  worship  of  France  ? 

The  general  answer  appears  to  me  not  difficult.  Atheism  and  the 
most  detestable  principles  will  be  the  fashion  of  the  present  age ;  but 
peace,  education,  and  returning  reason,  will  at  length  prevail  over  the 
wild  ideas  of  the  present  race  of  philosophers,  and  the  nation  will  era- 
brace  a  rational  religion. 

The  nation  is  now  so  totally  demoralized  by  the  current  philosophy 
of  the  age,  and  the  ferocious  spirit  of  war  and  faction,  that  atheism  is 
a  creed  perhaps  most  adapted  to  the  blind  and  headstrong  genius  of  the 
present  generation.  But  I  am  yet  one  of  the  old  fashioned  philosophers, 
who  believe  that,  however  particular  men  under  particular  circum- 
stances may  reject  all  ideas  of  God  and  religion,  yet  that  some  impres- 
sions of  a  Supreme  Being  are  as  natural  to  men,  as  their  passions  and 
their  appetites,  and  that  nations  will  have  some  God  to  adore  and  some 
mode  of  worship,  I  believe  some  future  legislature  of  France  will  be 
obliged  to  tread  back  some  of  the  steps  of  the  present  Convention,  with 
respect  to  the  establishment  of  a  chimerical  reason  in  lieu  of  religion. 

GOVERNMENT. 

I  am  of  the  same  opinion  respecting  their  constitution  of  government. 
France  can  not  enjoy  peace  or  liberty,  without  a  government  much 
more  energetic  than  the  present  constitution  would  be,  without  the  aid 
of  danger  without  and  a  guillotin  within.  The  moment  France  is  freed 
from  external  foes  and  is  left  to  itself,  it  will  feel  the  imbecility  of  its 
government.  France  now  resembles  a  man  under  the  operation  of 
spasms,  who  is  capable  of  exerting  an  astonishing  degree  of  unnatural 
muscular  force  ;  but  when  the  paroxysm  subsides,  languor  and  debility 
will  succeed.  This  observation  applies  to  its  political  force  ;  and  when 
the  war  shall  cease,  the  military  will  be  strong,  while  the  civil  power 
is  weak.  The  consequences  of  disbanding  half  a  million  of  soldiers  at 
once,  I  will  not  attempt  to  predict.  Should  any  dissatisfaction  prevail 
in  the  army  at  the  moment  of  peace,  on  account  of  pay,  provisions,  or 
any  other  cause,  the  nation  will  have  to  contend  with  more  formidable 
foes  than  the  military  machines  of  Austria  and  Prussia.  Great  caution 
and  policy  will  be  necessary  in  dispersing  such  a  number  of  soldiers 
and  bringing  them  back  to  habits  of  industry  and  order. 

The  seeds  of  faction,  that  enemy  of  government  and  freedom,  are 
sown  thick  in  the  present  constitution  of  France.  The  Executive  Coun- 
cil, to  be  composed  of  twenty-four  members,  will  be  a  hot-bed  of  party ; 
and  party  spirit  is  violent,  malignant  and  tyrannical.  The  French 
could  not  have  fallen  upon  a  more  effectual  expedient  to  create  and 
perpetuate  faction,  with  its  train  of  fatal  evils,  than  to  commit  the  exe- 
cution of  the  laws  to  a  number  of  hands  ;  for  faction  is  death  to  liberty. 

The  republic  of  France  is  to  keep  an  army  in  pay,  in  time  of  peace 
as  well  as  war.     This  army  will  always  be  at  the  command  of  the  ex- 


REVOLUTION   IN    FRANCE.  21 

ecutive.  When  the  minister  at  war  is  a  man  of  talents  and  a  wicked 
heart,  he  may  make  use  of  the  army  for  the  purposes  of  crushing  his 
competitors.  A  standing  army  in  America  is  considered  as  an  engine 
of  despotism ;  and  however  necessary  it  may  be  in  the  present  state 
of  Europe,  it  will  or  may  prove  dangerous  to  the  freedom  of  France. 

REMARKS. 

Let  it  not  be  thought  that  the  writer  of  these  sheets  is  an  enemy  to 
liberty  or  a  republican  government.  Such  an  opinion  is  wholly  un- 
founded. The  writer  is  a  native  American ;  born  in  an  independent 
republic.  He  imbibed  a  love  of  liberty  with  his  first  ideas  of  govern- 
ment ;  he  fought  for  the  independence  of  his  country  ;  he  wishes  to 
see  republican  governments  established  over  the  earth,  upon  the  ruins 
of  despotism.  He  has  not  however  imbibed  the  modern  philosophy, 
that  rejects  all  ancient  institutions,  civil,  social,  and  religious,  as  the 
impositions  of  fraud ;  the  tyranny  of  cunning  over  ignorance,  and  of 
power  over  weakness.  He  is  not  yet  convinced  that  men  are  capable 
of  such  perfection  on  earth,  as  to  regulate  all  their  actions  by  moral 
rectitude,  without  the  restraints  of  religion  and  law.  He  does  not  be- 
lieve with  the  French  atheist,  that  the  universe  is  composed  solely  of 
matter  and  motion,  without  a  Supreme  Intelligence  ;  nor  that  man  is 
solely  the  creature  of  education.  He  believes  that  God,  and  not  edu- 
cation, gives  man  his  passions ;  and  that  the  business  of  education  is 
to  restrain  and  direct  the  passions  to  the  purposes  of  social  happiness. 
He  believes  that  man  will  always  have  passions — that  these  passions 
will  frequently  urge  him  into  vices — that  religion  has  an  excellent  effect 
in  repressing  vices,  in  softening  the  manners  of  men,  and  consoling 
them  under  the  pressure  of  calamities.  He  believes  in  short,  that,  not- 
withstanding all  the  fine  philosophy  of  the  modern  reformers,  a  great 
part  of  mankind,  necessitated  to  labor,  and  unaccustomed  to  read, 
or  to  the  civilities  of  refined  life,  will  have  rough  passions,  that  will 
always  require  the  corrective  force  of  law,  to  prevent  them  from  vio- 
lating the  rights  of  others  :  of  course,  he  believes  government  is  neces- 
sary in  society ;  and  that  to  render  every  man  free,  there  must  be  en- 
ergy enough  in  the  executive,  to  restrain  any  man  and  any  body  of 
men  from  injuring  the  person  or  property  of  any  individual  in  the  soci- 
ety. But  as  many  of  the  preceding  remarks  appear  to  be  a  severe  rep- 
rehension of  the  ruling  party  in  France,  it  is  necessary  to  explain  myself 
more  freely  on  this  subject. 

The  cause  of  the  French  nation  is  the  noblest  ever  undertaken  by 
men.  It  was  necessary  ;  it  was  just.  The  feudal  and  the  papal  sys- 
tems were  tyrannical  in  the  extreme ;  they  fettered  and  debased  the 
mind  ;  they  enslaved  a  great  portion  of  Europe.  While  the  legislators 
of  France  confined  themselves  to  a  correction  of  real  evils,  they  were 
the  most  respectable  of  reformers :  they  commanded  the  attention,  the 
applause  and  the  admiration  of  surrounding  nations.  But  when  they 
descended  to  legislate  upon  names,  opinions  and  customs,  they  could 
have  no  influence  upon  liberty  or  social  rights,  they  became  contempti- 
ble ;  and  when  faction  took  the  lead,  when  a  difference  of  opinion  on 
the  form  of  government  proper  for  France,  or  a  mere  adherence  to  a 


22  REVOLUTION   IN   FRANCE. 

solemn  oath,  became  high  treason  punishable  with  death,  the  triumphant 
faction  inspired  even  the  friends  of  the  Revolution,  with  disgust  and 
horror.  Liberty  is  the  cry  of  these  men,  while  with  the  grimace  of  a 
Cromwell,  they  deprive  every  man  who  will  not  go  all  the  lengths  of 
their  rash  measures,  of  both  liberty  and  life.  A  free  republic  is  their 
perpetual  cant ;  yet  to  establish  their  own  ideas  of  this  free  government, 
they  have  formed  and  now  exercise  throughout  France,  a  military  aris- 
tocracy, the  most  bloody  and  despotic  recorded  in  history. 

But,  say  the  friends  of  the  Jacobins,  "  this  severity  is  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  accomplish  the  Revolution."  No,  this  is  not  the  truth.  It  is 
necessary  to  accomplish  the  views  of  the  Jacobins ;  but  a  revolution 
was  elTected  before  the  Jacobins  had  formed  themselves  into  a  consistent 
body,  and  assumed  the  sovereign  sway.  This  first  revolution  did  not 
proceed  far  enough  in  changes  of  old  institutions  to  satisfy  the  atheistical 
part  of  the  new  Convention.  The  first  constitution  had  abolished  the 
distinction  of  orders — it  had  stripped  the  nobles  and  clergy  of  their 
titles  and  rank — it  had  stripped  the  church  of  her  possessions — it  had 
taken  almost  all  power  from  the  king — but  it  had  left  untouched  the 
two  relics  of  monarchy  most  odious  to  little  minds,  the  name  of  king 
and  his  hereditary  descent.  This  furnished  the  violent  members  of  the 
Convention  with  a  pretext  for  a  further  reform,  in  which,  not  royalty 
alone,  for  this  is  a  matter  of  little  consequence,  but  even  the  customary 
modes  of  speech,  and  the  sublime  truths  of  Christianity,  have  fallen 
equally  a  prey  to  the  regenerating  enthusiasm  of  these  profound  phi- 
losophers. 

What  had  liberty  and  the  rights  of  men  to  do  with  this  second  revo- 
lution ?  If,  on  experiment,  it  had  been  found  that  the  limited  mon- 
archy of  the  first  constitution,  which  except  its  civil  list,  had  scarcely 
the  powei-s  of  the  executive  of  the  United  States,  was  productive  of  real 
evils  and  real  danger  to  the  freedom  of  the  government,  the  nation 
would  have  seen  the  danger,  and  by  general  consent,  in  a  peaceable 
manner,  and  without  the  violence  of  party  rage,  monarchy  would  have 
been  abolished.  The  progress  of  reason,  information,  and  just  notions 
of  government,  was  ripening  the  nation  fast  for  an  event  of  this  kind. 

Let  us  then  separate  the  men  from  the  cause  ;  and  while  we  detest 
the  instrument,  let  us  admire  and  applaud  the  end  to  be  accomplished. 
We  see  roses  growing  among  thorns,  and  we  know  a  Judas,  in  betray- 
ing his  Lord,  was  a  vile  instrument  of  man's  redemption.  I  am  an  old 
fashioned  believer  in  a  Divine  Intelligence,  that  superintends  the  affairs 
of  this  world,  always  producing  order  out  of  confusion.  So  far  as  the 
experience  of  three  thousand  years,  and  the  present  knowledge  of  men, 
will  furnish  data  for  reasoning  on  political  subjects,  we  may  safely  con- 
clude that  the  affairs  of  France  are  in  a  state  of  vacillation,  moving  from 
extreme  to  extreme  by  the  impulse  of  violent  causes  ;  and  that  in  a  few 
years  those  causes  will  be  removed,  the  vibration  will  cease,  and  the 
legislature,  tracing  back  some  of  the  steps  of  their  predecessors,  will 
take  the  middle  path  in  government,  religion,  and  morals,  which  has 
ever  been  found  practicable  and  safe.  In  medio  tutissimus  ibis,  is  a 
maxim  that  never  yet  deceived  the  man,  the  legislator,  or  the  phi- 
losopher. 


REVOLUTION    IN   FBANCE.  23 


APPLICATION. 


The  revolution  of  France,  like  that  of  Rome,  is  fruitful  in  lessons  of 
instruction,  of  which  all  enlightened  nations  should  avail  themselves, 
and  which  may  be  of  great  use  to  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  most  important  truth  suggested  by  the  foregoing  remarks  is,  that 
party  spirit  is  the  source  olfaction,  a.nd  faction  is  death  to  the  existing 
government.  The  history  of  the  Jacobins  is  the  most  remarkable  il- 
lustration of  this  truth.  I  will  not  undertake  to  say  that  there  did  not 
exist  in  France  a  necessity  for  a  combination  of  private  societies,  be- 
cause I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  not  necessary  to  exterminate  the 
remains  of  royalty  and  nobility,  before  a  free  government  could  be  es- 
tablished and  rendered  secure  and  permanent.  On  this  point  I  am  not 
qualified  to  judge.  But  that  it  was  this  league  of  Jacobins,  combining 
the  individuals  of  a  party  scattered  over  a  vast  extent  of  country,  into 
a  consistent  body,  moved  by  a  single  soul,  that  produced  the  second  rev- 
olution in  France,  is  a  point  of  which  there  can  be  no  question.  Their 
opposers,  the  moderate  party,  impliedly  acknowledged  this  truth,  when 
they  attempted  to  resist  their  force  by  the  same  means ;  and  formed 
themselves  into  a  society,  called,  from  their  place  of  meeting,  Fuillans. 
But  it  was  too  late.  The  Jacobins  were  organized ;  they  had  already 
gained  over  the  populace  of  Paris  to  their  interest,  and  had,  by  caress- 
es, and  alarming  their  fears  by  the  cry  of  despotism,  won  over  a  great 
part  of  the  peasantry  of  the  country.  The  Rubicon  was  passed  ;  party 
had  become /"action ;  the  Jacobins  and  the  Fuillans  were  the  Ccesar  and 
the  Pompey  of  France ;  one  or  the  other  must  fall ;  the  Jacobins  were 
the  most  powerful ;  they  employed  a  body  of  armed  men  to  disperse 
their  opposers ;  the  Fuillans  were  crushed  ;  and  the  Jacobins,  like  Cae- 
sar, were  seated  on  the  throne.  Admit  the  necessity  of  such  a  confed- 
eracy in  France,  or  in  any  country  where  it  is  expedient  and  proper  to 
overthrow  the  existing  government ;  yet  it  becomes  a  more  serious  ques- 
tion, what  is  the  use  of  such  a  combination  of  societies  in  the  United 
States.  When  government  is  radically  bad,  it  is  meritorious  to  reform 
it ;  when  there  is  no  other  expedient  to  rid  a  people  of  oppression,  it  is 
necessary  to  change  the  government ;  but  when  a  people  have  freely 
and  voluntarily  chosen  and  instituted  a  constitution  of  government,  which 
guaranties  all  their  rights,  and  no  corruption  appears  in  the  administra- 
tion, there  can  be  no  necessity  for  a  change  ;  and  if  in  any  particular, 
it  is  thought  to  require  amendment,  a  constitutional  mode  is  provided, 
and  there  is  no  necessity  for  recurring  to  extraordinary  expedients.  In 
America  therefore  there  can  exist  no  necessity  for  private  societies  to 
watch  over  the  government.  Indeed  to  pretend  that  a  government  that 
has  been  in  operation  but  five  or  six  years,  and  which  has  hitherto  pro- 
duced nothing  but  public  prosperity  and  private  happiness,  has  need  of 
associations  in  all  parts  of  the  country  to  guard  its  purity,  is  like  a  jeal- 
ous husband  who  should  deem  it  necessary,  the  day  after  his  nuptials, 
to  set  a  sentinel  over  his  wife  to  secure  her  fidelity. 

If  the  government  of  America  wants  a  reform,  the  best  mode  of  ef- 
fecting this,  is  the  constitutional  mode.  If  it  is  become  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  overthrow  it,  the  most  direct  mode  of  doing  it,  is  to  organize 


24  REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE. 

a  party  for  the  purpose,  by  condensing  its  scattered  forces  into  union 
and  system.  But  if  the  point  is  admitted,  that  the  government  does  not 
require  any  essential  alteration,  which  can  not  be  effected  in  a  legal  way, 
it  follows  of  course  that  the  establishment  of  private  societies  is  not  ne- 
cessary. For  the  same  reason  that  such  societies  were  found  useful  in 
France,  they  ought  to  be  avoided  like  a  pestilence  in  America  ;  because 
a  total  renovation  was  judged  necessary  in  that  country,  and  such  a  to- 
tal renovation  is  judged  not  necessary  in  America — because  a  republi- 
can government  was  to  he  established  in  that  country ;  and  in  this,  it  is 
already  established. 

As  the  tendency  of  such  associations  is  probably  not  fully  understood 
by  most  of  the  persons  composing  them  in  this  country,  and  many  of 
them  are  doubtless  well-meaning  citizens  ;  it  may  be  useful  to  trace  the 
progress  of  party  spirit  to  faction  firsts  and  then  of  course  to  tyranny. 

My  first  remark  is,  that  contentions  usually  spring  out  of  points  which 
are  trifling,  speculative,  or  of  doubtful  tendency.  Among  trifling  cau- 
ses I  rank  pei-sonal  injuries.  It  has  frequently  happened  that  an  affront 
offered  by  one  leading  man  in  a  state  to  another,  has  disquieted  the 
whole  state,  and  even  caused  a  revolution.  The  real  interest  of  the 
people  has  nothing  to  do  with  private  resentments,  and  ought  never  to 
be  affected  by  them — yet  nothing  is  more  common.  And  republics  are 
more  liable  to  suffer  changes  and  convulsions,  on  account  of  personal 
quarrels,  than  any  other  species  of  government ;  because  the  individu- 
als, who  have  acquired  the  confidence  of  the  people,  can  always  fabri- 
cate some  reasons  for  rousing  their  passions — some  pretext  of  public 
good  may  be  invented,  when  the  man  has  his  own  passions  to  gratify — 
the  minds  of  the  populace  are  easily  inflamed — and  strong  parties  may 
be  raised  on  the  most  frivolous  occasions.  I  have  known  an  instance 
in  America  of  a  man's  intriguing  for  and  obtaining  an  election  to  an  im- 
portant trust,  which  he  immediately  resigned,  and  confessed  he  had  done 
it  solely  to  gratify  his  own  will  and  mortify  his  enemies.  Yet  had  the 
man  been  disposed,  he  might  have  used  his  influence  to  strengthen  a 
party,  and  give  trouble  to  the  state. 

Another  cause  of  violent  parties  is  frequently  a  difference  of  opinion 
on  speculative  questions,  or  those  whose  real  tendency  to  secure  public 
happiness  is  equivocal. — When  meeisures  are  obviously  good,  and  clear- 
ly tend  to  advance  public  weal,  there  will  seldom  be  much  division  of 
opinion  on  the  propriety  of  adopting  them.  All  parties  unite  in  pui'su- 
ing  the  public  interest,  when  it  is  clearly  visible.  But  when  it  is  doubt- 
ful what  will  be  the  ultimate  effect  of  a  measure,  men  will  differ  in  opin- 
ion, and  probably  the  parties  will  be  nearly  equal.  It  is  on  points  of 
private  local  utility,  or  on  those  of  doubtful  tendency,  that  men  split  in- 
to parties. 

My  second  remark  is,  that  a  contention  between  parties  is  usually 
violent  in  proportion  to  the  trifling  nature  of  the  point  in  question ;  or 
to  the  uncertainty  of  its  tendency  to  promote  public  happiness.  When 
an  object  of  great  magnitude  is  in  question,  and  its  utility  obvious,  a 
great  majority  is  usually  found  in  its  favor,  and  vice  versa  ;  and  a  large 
majority  usually  quiets  all  opposition.  But  when  a  point  is  of  less  mag- 
nitude or  less  visible  utility,  the  parties  may  be  and  often  are  nearly 
equal.     Then  it  becomes  a  trial  of  strength — each  party  acquires  con- 


REVOLUTION   IN   PRANCE.  25 

fidence  from  the  very  circumstance  of  equality — both  become  assured 
they  are  right — confidence  inspires  boldness  and  expectation  of  suc- 
cess— pride  comes  in  aid  of  argument — the  passions  are  inflamed — the 
merits  of  the  cause  become  a  subordinate  consideration — victory  is  the 
object  and  not  public  good  ;  at  length  the  question  is  decided  by  a  small 
majority — success  inspires  one  party  with  pride,  and  they  assume  the 
airs  of  conquerors  ;  disappointment  sours  the  minds  of  the  other — and 
thus  the  contest  ends  in  creating  violent  passions,  which  are  always 
ready  to  enlist  into  every  other  cause.  Such  is  the  progress  of  party 
spirit ;  and  a  single  question  will  often  give  rise  to  a  party,  that  will 
continue  for  generations  ;  and  the  same  men  or  their  adherents  will  con- 
tinue to  divide  on  other  questions,  that  have  not  the  remotest  connection 
with  the  first  point  of  contention. 

This  observation  gives  rise  to  my  third  remark  ;  that  nothing  is  more 
dangerous  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  liberty  than  a  party  spirit.  When 
men  are  once  united,  in  whatever  form,  or  upon  whatever  occasion, 
the  union  creates  a  partiality  or  friendship  for  each  member  of  the  party 
or  society.  A  coalition  for  any  purpose  creates  an  attachment,  and 
inspires  a  confidence  in  the  individuals  of  the  party,  which  does  not  die 
with  the  cause  which  united  them  ;  but  continues,  and  extends  to  every 
other  object  of  social  intercourse. 

Thus  we  see  men  first  united  in  some  system  of  religious  faith,  gen- 
erally agree  in  their  political  opinions.  Natives  of  the  same  country, 
even  in  a  foreign  country,  unite  and  form  a  separate  private  society. 
The  Masons  feel  attached  to  each  other,  though  in  distant  parts  of  the 
world. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  Episcopalians,  Quakers,  Presbyterians, 
Roman  Catholics,  Federalists,  and  Antifederalists,  mechanic  societies, 
chambers  of  commerce.  Jacobin  and  Democratic  societies.  It  is  alto- 
gether immaterial  what  circumstance  first  unites  a  number  of  men  into 
a  society ;  whether  they  first  rally  round  the  church,  a  square  and 
compass,  a  cross,  or  a  cap  ;  the  general  effect  is  always  the  same  ; 
while  the  union  continues,  the  members  of  the  association  feel  a  partic- 
ular confidence  in  each  other,  which  leads  them  to  believe  each  other's 
opinions,  to  catch  each  other's  passions,  and  to  act  in  concert  on  every 
question  in  which  they  are  interested. 

Hence  arises  what  is  called  bigotry  or  illiberality.  Persons  who  are 
united  on  any  occasion,  are  more  apt  to  believe  the  prevailing  opinions 
of  their  society^  than  the  prevailing  opinions  of  another  society.  They 
examine  their  own  creeds  more  i"ully,  (and  perhaps  with  a  mind  pre- 
disposed to  believe  them,)  than  they  do  the  creeds  of  other  societies. 
Hence  the  full  persuasion  in  every  society  that  theirs  is  right ;  and  if  I 
am  right,  others  of  course  are  wrong.  Perhaps  therefore  I  am  warranted 
in  saying,  there  is  a  species  of  bigotry  in  every  society  on  earth — and 
indeed  in  every  man's  own  particular  faith.  While  each  man  and  each 
society  is  freely  indulged  in  his  own  opinion,  and  that  opinion  is  mere 
speculation,  there  is  peace,  harmony,  and  good  understanding.  But 
the  moment  a  man  or  a  society  attempts  to  oppose  the  prevailing  opin- 
ions of  another  man  or  society,  even  his  arguments  rouse  passion  ;  it 
being  diflncult  for  two  men  of  opposite  creeds  to  dispute  for  any  time, 
without  becoming  angry.     And  when  one  party  attempts  in  practice  to 

4 


26  EEVOLUTION   IN    FRANCE. 

interfere  with  the  opinions  of  another  party,  violence  most  generally 
succeeds. 

These  remarks  are  so  consonant  to  experience  and  common  observa- 
tion, that  I  presume  no  man  can  deny  them ;  and  if  true,  they  deserve 
the  serious  attention  of  every  good  citizen  of  America. 

The  citizens  of  this  extensive  republic  constitute  a  nation.  As  a 
nation,  we  feel  all  the  prejudices  of  a  society.  These  national  preju- 
dices are  probably  necessary,  in  the  present  state  of  the  world,  to 
strengthen  our  government.  They  form  a  species  of  political  bigotry, 
common  to  all  nations,  from  which  springs  a  real  allegiance,  never 
expressed,  but  always  firm  and  unwavering.  This  passion,  when  cor- 
rected by  candor,  benevolence,  and  love  of  mankind,  softens  down  into 
a  steady  principle,  which  forms  the  soul  of  a  nation,  true  patriotism. 
Each  nation  of  the  world  is  then  a  party  in  the  great  society  of  the  hu- 
man race.  When  at  peace,  party  spirit  subsides,  and  mutual  inter- 
course unites  the  parties.  But  when  the  interest  of  either  is  attacked, 
a  war  succeeds,  and  all  the  malignant  and  barbarous  passions  are  called 
into  exercise. 

Admit  national  prejudices  to  be  in  a  degree  necessary  ;  let  us  see 
what  other  prejudices  exist  in  the  United  States,  which  may  prove  per- 
nicious to  ourselves.  The  American  nation  is  composed  of  fifteen  sub- 
ordinate states.  I  say  subordinate  ;  for  they  are  so  in  all  national 
concerns.     They  are  sovereign  only  in  their  internal  police. 

The  states  were  erected  out  of  British  colonies ;  and  it  was  the  policy 
of  Great  Britain  rather  to  foment,  than  to  allay  or  eradicate  colonial 
prejudices.  She  knew  that  such  prejudices  weakened  the  strength  of 
the  colonies,  and  kept  them  in  subjection  to  the  mother  empire.  Even 
the  manners,  the  language  and  the  food  of  the  people  in  one  colony, 
were  made  the  subjects  of  ridicule  by  the  inhabitants  of  another.  Rid- 
icule is  accompanied  or  followed  by  a  degree  of  contempt ;  and  hence 
sprung  a  dissocial  turn  of  mind  among  the  people  of  different  colonies, 
which  common  interest  and  common  danger  have  not  yet  converted 
into  perfect  harmony. 

Since  the  Revolution,  a  jealousy  between  the  states  has  sprung  from 
the  superior  wealth,  magnitude,  or  advantages  of  some,  which  the  small 
states  have  apprehended  would  enable  the  large  ones  to  swallow  them 
up  in  some  future  time.  This  jealousy  is  mostly  removed  by  the  pres- 
ent constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  guaranties  to  each  state  its 
independence  and  a  republican  form  of  government.  This  guaranty 
is  the  best  security  of  each. 

Another  source  of  apprehension  has  been,  and  still  is,  the  danger  of 
what  is  called  consolidation.  The  states  are  c^stantly  asserting  their 
sovereignty,  and  publishing  their  fears  that  the  national  government 
will  gradually  absorb  the  state  governments.  Their  jealousy  on  this 
head  is  alive,  and  alarmed  at  every  breeze  of  air.  I  am  clearly  of 
opinion,  that  if  peace  and  harmony  can  be  preserved  between  the  gen- 
eral and  particular  governments,  the  purity  of  our  national  government 
will  depend  much  on  the  legislatures  of  the  several  states.  They  are 
the  political  guardians,  whose  interest  is  constantly  impelling  them  to 
watch  the  progress  of  corruption  in  the  general  government.  And 
they  will  always  be  the  more  attentive  to  their  duty,  as  they  entertain 


REVOLUTION    IN    FKANCE.  27 

not  only  a  jealousy  of  the  general  government,  but  a  jealousy  of  each 
other. 

But  I  differ  from  many  people  who  fear  a  consolidation.  So  far  as 
my  knowledge  of  history  and  men  will  enable  me  to  judge  on  this  sub- 
ject, I  must  think  our  danger  mostly  lies  in  the  jealousy  of  the  several 
states.  Instead  of  a  probable  annihilation  of  the  state  governments,  I 
apprehend  great  danger  from  the  disuniting  tendency  of  state  jealousy, 
which  may  dismember  the  present  confederacy.  That  the  states  have 
the  power  to  do  this,  I  have  no  doubt ;  and  I  consider  our  union,  and 
consequently  our  strength  and  prosperity,  as  depending  more  on  mutual 
interest  and  mutual  coyicession,  than  on  the  force  of  the  national  consti- 
tution. Consolidation  is  with  me  a  bugbear,  a  chimera,  as  idle  and  in- 
significant, as  the  medallion  of  a  king.  But  from  the  disorganizing  ten- 
dency of  state  jealousy,  there  appears  to  be  a  well  founded  apprehen- 
sion of  danger. 

But  the  principal  danger  to  which  our  government  is  exposed  will 
probably  arise  from  another  quarter ;  the  spirit  of  party,  which  is  now 
taking  the  form  of  system.  While  a  jealousy  and  opposition  to  the  na- 
tional constitution  exist  only  in  the  legislatures  of  the  several  states, 
they  will  be  restrained  and  moderated  by  the  public  dignity  of  those 
bodies,  and  by  legal  or  constitutional  forms  of  proceeding.  Opposition 
thus  tempered  loses  its  terrors. 

But  opposition  that  is  raised  in  private  societies  of  men,  which  are 
self-created,  unknown  to  the  laws  of  the  country,  private  in  their  pro- 
ceedings, and  perhaps  violent  in  their  passions,  the  moment  it  ceases  to 
be  insignificant,  becomes  formidable  to  the  government  and  freedom. 
The  very  people  who  compose  these  societies,  are  not  aware  of  the  pos- 
sible consequences  that  may  flow  from  their  associations.  They  are 
few  of  them  persons  of  extensive  historical  knowledge  ;  and  they  do  not 
perceive,  that  under  pretense  of  securing  their  rights  and  liberties,  they 
are  laying  the  foundation  of  factions  which  will  probably  end  in  the  de- 
struction of  liberty  and  a  free  government.  Th^  do  not  consider,  that 
when  men  become  members  of  a  political  club,  they  lose  their  individ- 
ual independence  of  mind  ;  that  they  lose  their  impartiality  of  thinking 
and  acting ;  and  become  the  dupes  of  other  men.  The  moment  a  man 
is  attached  to  a  club,  his  mind  is  not  free  :  he  receives  a  bias  from  the 
opinions  of  the  party :  a  question  indifferent  to  him,  is  no  longer  indif- 
ferent, when  it  materially  affects  a  brother  of  the  society.  He  is  not 
left  to  act  for  himself;  he  is  bound  in  honor  to  take  part  with  the  soci- 
ety— his  pride  and  his  prejudices,  if  at  war  with  his  opinion,  will  com- 
monly obtain  the  victory  ;  and  rather  than  incur  the  ridicule  or  censure 
of  his  associates,  he  will  countenance  their  measures,  at  all  hazards ; 
and  thus  an  independent  freeman  is  converted  into  a  mere  walking  ma- 
chine, a  convenient  engine  of  party  leaders. 

It  is  thus  that  private  associations  may  always  influence  public  meas- 
ures ;  and  if  they  are  formed  for  the  express  purpose  of  discussing  polit- 
ical measures,  they  may  prove  pernicious  to  the  existing  government. 

The  society  of  Jesuits,  formed  at  first  without  any  intention  of  influ- 
encing government,  became  at  last  formidable  to  the  civil  power,  wher- 
ever they  were  established,  and  the  society  was  finally  dissolved  by  the 
arm  of  power,  on  account  of  the  danger  of  its  intrigues.     The  society 


28  EEVOLUTION   IN   FRANCE. 

was  at  first  small  and  insignificant ;  but  its  influence  was  increeised  and 
strengthened  by  such  means  as  I  have  described,  till  a  small  part  of  the 
inhabitants  of  a  country  became  dangerous  to  its  government ! 

Private  associations  of  men  for  the  purposes  of  promoting  arts,  scien- 
ces, benevolence  or  charity  are  very  laudable,  and  have  been  found 
beneficial  in  all  countries.  But  whenever  such  societies  attempt  to  con- 
vert the  private  attachment  of  their  members  into  an  instrument  of  polit' 
ical  warfare,  they  are,  in  all  cases,  hostile  to  government.  They  are 
useful  in  pulling  down  bad  governments ;  but  they  are  dangerous  to 
good  government,  and  necessarily  destroy  liberty  and  equality  of  rights 
in  a  free  country.  I  say  necessarily ;  for  it  must  occur  to  any  man  of 
common  reflection,  that  in  a  free  country,  each  citizen,  in  his  private 
capacity,  has  an  equal  right  to  a  share  of  influence  in  directing  public 
measures ;  but  a  society,  combined  for  the  purpose  of  augmenting  and 
extending  its  influence,  acquires  an  undue  proportion  of  that  general  in- 
fluence which  is  to  direct  the  will  of  the  state.  Each  individual  mem- 
ber of  the  state  should  have  an  equal  voice  in  elections  ;  but  the  individ- 
uals of  a  club  have  more  than  an  equal  voice,  because  they  have  the 
benefit  of  another  influence  ;  that  of  extensive  private  attachments  which 
come  in  aid  of  each  man's  political  opinion.  And  just  in  proportion  as 
the  members  of  a  club  have  an  undue  share  of  influence,  in  that  propor- 
tion they  abridge  the  rights  of  their  fellow  citizens.  Every  club  there- 
fore formed  for  political  purposes,  is  an  aristocracy  established  over 
their  brethren.  It  has  all  the  properties  of  an  aristocracy,  and  all  the 
effects  of  tyranny.  It  is  only  substituting  the  influence  of  private  attach- 
ments, in  lieu  of  the  influence  of  birth  and  property  among  the  nobility 
of  Europe  ;  and  the  certain  effect  of  private  intrigue  in  lieu  of  the  usurp- 
ed power  and  rights  of  feudal  lords  ;  the  effects  are  the  same.  It  is  a 
literal  truth,  which  can  not  be  denied,  evaded,  or  modified,  that  the  rfe- 
mocratic  clubs  in  the  United  States,  while  running  mad  with  the  abhor- 
rence of  aristocratic  influence,  are  attempting  to  establish  precisely  the 
same  influence  undel^  different  name.  And  if  any  thing  will  rescue 
this  country  from  the  jaws  of  faction,  and  prevent  our  free  government 
from  falling  a  prey,  first  to  civil  dissensions,  and  finally  to  some  future 
Sylla  and  Marius,  it  must  be  either  the  good  sense  of  a  great  majority 
of  Americans,  which  will  discourage  private  political  associations,  and 
render  them  contemptible  ;  or  the  controlling  power  of  the  laws  of  the 
country,  which  in  an  early  stage  shall  demolish  all  such  institutions, 
and  secure  to  each  individual  in  the  great  political  family  equal  rights 
and  an  equal  share  of  influence  in  his  individual  capacity. 

But  let  us  admit  that  no  fatal  consequences  to  government  and  equal 
rights  will  ensue  from  these  institutions,  still  their  effects  on  social  har- 
mony are  very  pernicious,  and  already  begin  to  appear.  A  party  spirit 
is  hostile  to  all  friendly  intercourse  :  it  inflames  the  passions  ;  it  sours 
the  mind  ;  it  destroys  good  neighborhood  ;  it  warps  the  judgment  in  ju- 
dicial determinations ;  it  banishes  candor  and  substitutes  prejudice  ;  it 
restrains  the  exercise  of  benevolent  affections  ;  and  in  proportion  as  it 
chills  the  warm  affections  of  the  soul,  it  undermines  the  whole  system  of 
moral  virtue.  Were  the  councils  of  hell  united  to  invent  expedients  for 
depriving  men  of  the  little  portion  of  good  they  are  destined  to  enjoy  on 
this  earth,  the  only  measure  they  need  to  adopt  for  this  purpose,  would 


REVOLUTION   IN   FRANCE.  fi& 

be,  to  introduce  factions  into  the  bosom  of  the  country.  It  was  faction 
that  kept  the  states  of  Greece  and  Rome  in  perpetual  perturbation ;  it 
was  faction  which  was  an  incessant  scourge  of  merit ;  it  was  faction 
which  produced  endless  dissension  and  frequent  civil  wars  ;  it  was  fac- 
tion which  converted  a  polite  people  into  barbarous  persecutors,  as  it  has 
done  in  France ;  and  which  finally  compelled  the  brave  republicans  of 
Rome  to  suffer  a  voluntary  death,  or  to  shelter  themselves  from  the  fury 
of  contending  parties,  beneath  the  scepter  of  an  emperor. 


APPENDIX. 


ON     FACTION. 


The  following  short  account  of  the  disputes  between  Sylla  and  Ma* 
rius  in  Rome,  is  too  applicable  to  my  purpose  to  be  omitted, 

Sylla  and  Marius  were  competitors  for  the  command  of  the  army 
destined  to  act  against  Mithridates  in  Asia.  Sylla  obtained  the  ap- 
pointment. Marius,  to  revenge  himself,  and  if  possible  displace  his 
rival,  had  recourse  to  P.  Sulpicius,  a  popular  tribune  of  considerable 
talents,  but  daring  and  vicious.  This  man  made  interest  with  the  peo- 
ple^ sold  the  freedom  of  the  city  to  strangers  and  freemen,  with  a  view 
to  strengthen  his  party,  and  proposed  a  number  of  popular  laws,  in 
direct  violation  of  the  Roman  constitution — some  of  which  artifices  are 
exactly  similar  to  those  employed  by  the  Jacobins  in  France  and  their 
disciples. 

The  consuls  attempted  to  defeat  these  projects  ;  but  the  tribune  col- 
lected a  multitude  of  the  people,  went  to  the  senate  house,  and  commanded 
the  consuls  to  comply  with  their  wishes.  This  is  precisely  the  mode 
of  proceeding  adopted  by  the  Jacobins  in  Paris. 

The  consuls  refused  ;  the  populace  drew  their  daggers  ;  the  son  of 
the  consul,  Pompeius,  was  killed,  but  Sylla  escaped.  This  answers  to 
the  manner  in  which  the  Jacobins  destroyed  their  enemies,  the  Fuil- 
lans,  by  employing  an  armed  body  of  ruffians. 

Sylla  however  was  brought  back,  and  compelled  to  comply  with  the 
demands  of  the  tribune.  He  was  therefore  left  in  possession  of  the 
consulship,  and  soon  after  joined  the  army.  His  colleague,  Pompeius, 
was  degraded,  and  Sulpicius  obtained  the  laws  he  had  proposed.  Sylla 
was  displaced,  and  Marius  appointed  to  the  command  of  the  army. 
Just  so  the  Jacobins  proceeded,  till  they  had  filled  all  public  offices  with 
their  own  partisans. 

Now  the  factions  were  ripe,  and  they  ended  as  other  factions  end, 
in  repelling  force  with  force.  Sylla  would  not  resign  his  command  to 
a  faction.  (La  Fayette  and  Demourier  had  the  spirit  of  Sylla,  in  like 
circumstances,  but  their  troops  would  not  support  them.)  He  marched 
his  army  of  thirty-five  thousand  men  toward  Rome.  The  city  was  in 
confusion.  The  senate,  by  order  of  Sulpicius  and  Marius,  the  Marat 
and  Barrere  of  Rome,  sent  a  deputation,  forbidding  the  approach  of 


90  REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE. 

the  army.  The  deputies  were  insulted  by  the  soldiers.  Other  em- 
bassadors were  dispatched  by  the  senate,  requesting  Sylla  not  to  pro- 
ceed. He  answered  he  would  stay  where  he  was ;  but  he  detached  a 
body  of  men  to  take  possession  of  one  of  the  gates  of  the  city.  The 
people  drove  them  bacl<,  but  Sylla  arrived  in  time  to  support  them  ; 
and  he  set  fire  to  the  adjacent  houses.  Marius  resisted,  and  promised 
freedom  to  the  slaves  that  would  join  him.  But  he  was  forced  to  flee, 
and  Sylla,  assembling  the  senate,  proposed  the  banishment  of  Sulpicius, 
Marius,  and  ten  of  their  principal  adherents.  The  edict  was  passed, 
and  Sylla  set  a  price  upon  their  head,  and  confiscated  their  estates. 
Suipicius  was  taken  by  the  treachery  of  a  slave  and  put  to  death.  To 
reward  the  slave,  Sylla  gave  him  his  freedom,  and  then  ordered  him, 
for  the  treachery,  to  be  thrown  from  the  Tarpeian  rock — (the  method 
of  rewarding  and  punishing  modern  traitors  is  much  similar,  giving 
them  a  round  sum  of  money  and  consigning  them  to  infamy.) 

Sylia  convened  the  people,  annulled  the  new  laws  of  Suipicius,  cre- 
ated three  hundred  senators  to  strengthen  his  interest,  and  soon  set  out 
for  Asia  with  his  army. 

I  can  not  detail  the  whole  history  of  this  business — suffice  it  to  say, 
this  pitiful  question,  which  of  two  able  generals,  (either  of  them  fit  for 
the  purpose,  and  not  of  a  straw's  value  was  it  to  the  public  which 
gained  the  appointment,)  should  command  the  army  in  the  Mithridatic 
war,  gave  rise  to  two  parties  or  factions,  which  pursued  each  other  with 
implacable  enmity,  till  they  brought  their  forces  into  the  field,  and  an 
action  was  fought,  which  cost  the  lives  of  ten  thousand  men. 

Marius,  the  conqueror  of  the  Cimbri,  and  savior  of  Rome,  an  exile, 
took  shipping,  was  cast  away,  taken  by  his  foes,  escaped,  suffering 
incredible  hardships  ;  finally  arrived  in  Asia,  where  he  was  maltreated 
—at  last  recalled  by  Cinna  the  consul,  he  returned  to  Italy,  and  em- 
bodying a  number  of  slaves,  he  entered  Rome,  and  filled  it  with  slaugh- 
ter ;  his  party  putting  to  death  every  man,  whose  salutation  Marius  did 
not  return.  Marius  grew  daily  more  bloodthirsty,  and  at  last  put  to 
death  every  person  of  whom  he  had  the  least  suspicion.  Who  does 
not  see  the  guillotin  in  ancient  Rome  ? 

Marius  soon  after  died  ;  but  his  son  headed  an  army  and  supported 
his  faction.  Sylla,  having  defeated  Mithridates  and  reduced  him  to 
terms  of  peace,  returned  to  Italy ;  fought  the  Marian  party,  and  in  two 
actions,  it  is  said,  twenty  thousand  men  were  slain  in  each.  Finally, 
Sylla  crushed  his  rival's  party,  and  put  to  death  the  leaders,  filling 
Rome  with  slaughter,  as  Marius  had  done  before  him.  Sylla's  cruel 
proscriptions  fill  the  reader  with  horror.  Nearly  five  thousand  of  the 
best  citizens  of  Rome  were  proscribed  and  massacred.  Sylla's  assas- 
sins roamed  through  Italy  to  find  the  adherents  of  Marius,  and  put 
them  to  indiscriminate  slaughter.  When  the  senators  appeared  alarmed 
at  such  outrages,  Sylla  answered  them  coolly,  "  Conscript  fathers,  '  it 
is  only  a  few  seditious  men,  whom  I  have  ordered  to  be  punished' " — 
precisely  the  language  of  the  ruling  faction  in  France,  and  precisely 
the  language  of  party  in  all  countries. 

It  is  remarkable  also  that  the  pretext  for  these  violences  is  always 
the  same — "  to  rescue  the  state  from  tyranny — to  destroy  despotism — 
to  exterminate  traitors."     This  was  the  perpetual  cant  of  Sylla  and 


BEVOLUTION    IM   FRANCE.  31- 

Marius,  while  they  were  butchering  each  other's  adherents  with  mer- 
ciless cruelty.  This  was  the  pretense  of  Cromwell  in  England — and 
it  is  the  present  language  of  the  ruling  men  in  France.  The  state  must 
be  saved,  and  to  save  it  our  party  must  prevail;  liberty  must  be  se- 
cured, but  to  secure  it,  we  must  be  absolute  in  power,  and  of  course 
liberty  is  crushed.  A  republic  must  be  established  ;  but  to  do  this,  a 
few  commissioners  with  dictatorial  power,  seconded  by  an  irresistible 
military  force,  must  govern  the  country.  Our  government  shall  be  a 
republic,  one  arid  indivisible ;  and  to  effect  this,  it  is  necessary  to  put 
to  death  the  representatives  of  one  half  the  republic,  that  the  whole 
may  be  governed  by  the  other  half.  Freedom  of  debate  is  a  constitu- 
tional right ;  but  we  must  have  a  Paris  mob  to  hiss  down  our  enemies. 

Sylla  crushed  his  enemies,  with  the  blood  of  nearly  one  hundred 
thousand  citizens  and  soldiers ;  and  after  he  had  thus  delivered  Rome 
from  tyrants,  as  he  pretended,  he  ordered  the  people  to  elect  him  per- 
petual dictator.  He  treated  the  people  just  as  all  popular  leaders  treat 
them  ;  first  courting  them  with  the  cry  of  liberty  ;  making  them  the 
instruments  of  their  own  elevation  ;  then  trampling  on  them  as  slaves. 
Just  so  in  England,  Cromwell  destroyed  the  tyranny  of  Charles  I,  by 
the  cant  of  liberty  and  religion,  then  saddled  the  English  with  his  own 
despotic  power.  Just  so  Danton  and  Barrere  are  now  dictators  in 
France,  without  the  name,  but  with  all  the  powers ;  and  who  will  suc- 
ceed them,  God  only  knows. 

I  beg  the  reader  to  consider  these  facts,  as  intended  solely  to  set  in 
a  strong  point  of  light  the  danger  of  faction.  I  will  not  say  that  the 
tyranny  and  corruptions  of  the  old  governments  in  Europe,  will  not 
warrant  men  in  hazarding  all  possible  temporary  evils  to  effect  a  reno- 
vation. I  would  with  candor  believe  such  violences,  in  some  degree, 
unavoidable.  But  nothing  short  of  most  palpable  corruption,  the  most 
unequivocal  proof  of  necessity,  can  warrant  men  in  resorting  to  irreg- 
ular bodies  of  the  people  for  a  redress  of  evils.  While  law  and  con- 
stitution are  adhered  to,  the  remedy  will  always  be  safe.  But  when 
tumultuous  meetings  of  people,  unknown  to  the  laws,  and  unrestramed 
by  legal  modes  of  procedure,  undertake  to  direct  the  public  will,  fac- 
tion succeeds  ;  and  faction  begets  disorder,  force,  rancorous  passions, 
anarchy,  tyranny,  blood,  and  slaughter. 

Note  1. 

jacobin   club. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  late  revolution  in  America,  the  people  of 
this  country  had  recourse  to  a  similar  mode  of  combining  all  parts  of 
the  continent  into  a  system  of  opposition  to  the  existing  government. 
In  most  of  the  colonies  the  British  crown,  by  its  officers,  had  consid- 
erable influence.  To  resist  this  influence,  the  leaders  found  it  neces- 
sary to  call  in  the  aid  of  the  great  body  of  the  people ;  to  rouse  their 
passions,  inflammatory  publications  were  circulated  with  great  indus- 
try ;  and  to  unite,  condense,  and  direct  the  opinions  and  passions  of 
an  immense  people,  scattered  over  a  great  extent  of  territory,  associa- 
tions were  formed  under  the  denomination  of  committees  of  safety, 


I 


38  KEVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE. 

which  had  a  correspondence  with  each  other,  and  molded  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  people  into  uniformity  and  system.  The  first  Congress 
grew  out  of  the  same  system ;  and  then  followed  union,  concert,  and 
energy  in  prosecuting  the  revolution. 

It  has  been  an  inexplicable  mystery  to  many  very  judicious  men, 
how  the  Americans  should  have  been  brought  to  unite  in  opposing  the 
usurped  claims  of  Great  Britain,  when  the  evils  of  slavery  were  not  in 
reality  felt,  but  only  expected  by  the  people.  In  short,  why  such  a 
number  of  illiterate  men  should  be  prevailed  upon  to  resist  tyranny  in 
principle,  and  risk  the  evils  of  war,  when  the  effects  of  the  British 
claims  were  but  slightly  felt  by  the  mass  of  the  people.  All  parties 
however  agree  in  ascribing  this  amazing  union,  to  the  good  sense  of  the 
Americans. 

The  truth  is,  discernment  and  talents  were  necessary  to  form  and 
direct  the  system ;  but  the  multitude  were  managed  more  by  their  pas- 
sions than  by  their  reason.  The  committees  of  safety  were  the  instru- 
ments of  union ;  and  the  passions  of  the  populace  the  instruments  of 
action.  The  presses  teemed  with  publications  addressed  to  the  pas- 
sions ;  the  horrors  of  slavery  were  presented  to  the  imagination  in 
striking  colors ;  and  the  men  who  wrote  intended,  when  they  wrote,  to 
exaggerate  real  facts  for  the  purpose  of  rousing  the  passions  of  resent- 
ment and  dread  of  evils,  which  reason  told  them,  were  not  to  be  ex- 
pected. These  matters  are  now  known.  And  it  appears  very  clear 
from  history  and  observation,  that  in  a  popular  government,  it  is  not 
difficult  to  inflame  the  passions  of  a  people  with  imaginary  as  well  as 
real  evils.  In  Europe  the  people  have  real  evils  to  extirpate.  The 
passions  of  Americans  are  enlisting  on  one  side  or  the  other  of  the 
present  contest  in  France.  We  feel  no  loss  of  personal  liberty  as  yet, 
in  consequence  of  the  combination  against  France ;  but  artful  men  ad- 
dress the  passions  of  our  citizens ;  they  teach  them  to  fear,  that  if 
France  should  be  reduced,  the  combined  powers  will  attack  liberty 
in  America.  Cool  men,  who  reflect  upon  the  difiiculties  of  such  an 
attempt,  consider  all  such  apprehensions  as  groundless  and  idle.  But 
two  or  three  hundred  men  collected,  might  have  their  passions  so  wrought 
upon  by  an  artful  or  noisy  declaimer,  as  to  believe  the  danger  real. 
They  then  grow  violent,  and  denounce  as  enemies,  all  who  are  cool  or 
moderate  enough  to  entertain  no  such  fears.  Thus  two  parties  are 
formed  on  a  mere  imaginary  evil,  and  when  the  parties  are  formed, 
some  badge  of  distinction,  a  button  or  a  cockade  is  assumed,  to  widen 
the  breach,  and  create  disaffection,  suspicion,  and  hostile  passions.  All 
this  is  very  visible  in  America ;  and  because  some  men  are  too  rational 
to  be  alarmed  at  chimeras,  too  temperate  to  commit  themselves  hastily, 
or  loo  respectable  not  to  despise  little  badges  of  distinction,  the  livery 
of  faction,  they  are  insulted  as  enemies  to  the  rights  of  the  people; 
and  whenever  opportunities  offer,  they  fall  a  prey  to  the  fury  of  popu- 
lar passion.  This  is  the  triumph  of  passion  over  reason,  of  violence 
over  moderation.  Should  the  present  controverey  in  Europe  continue 
two  or  three  years  longer,  I  should  not  be  surprised  to  see  party  spirit 
in  America,  which  grew  originally  out  of  a  mere  speculative  question, 
proceed  to  open  hostility  and  bloodshed.  People  are  easily  made  to 
believe  their  government  is  bad,  or  not  so  good  as  they  might  expect 


REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE.  33 

from  change ;  they  may  be  made  to  fear  corruption,  which  they  do  not 
see,  and  which  does  not  exist ;  and  to  risk  real  evils  at  the  present  mo- 
ment, to  guard  against  possible  evils  a  century  hence.  All  this  may 
be  done,  if  restless  daring  men  will  take  pains  to  manage  popular 
passions. 

Note  2. 

<■■  It  may  seem  strange  that  moderation  should  be  deemed  a  crime  ;  but 
it  is  a  literal  truth.  In  the  sittings  of  the  Jacobin  Club,  Dec,  26th,  1793, 
Robespierre  was  under  the  necessity  of  vindicating  himself  from  the 
charge  of  being  a  Moderate,  a  Fuillant. 

Nor  is  it  less  singular  that  some  of  the  charges  against  their  opposers 
should  consist  of  mere  trifles  or  suspicion,  or  were  so  indefinite  as  not 
to  be  capable  of  proof  One  of  the  charges  against  Le  Brun  was,  that 
he  christened  a  daughter  by  the  name  of  "  Victoire  Demouricr  Jamappe." 
This  was  done  while  Demourier  was  in  full  career  of  glory  ;  yet  his 
enemies,  from  this  circumstance,  deduced  proof  of  Le  Brun's  conspi- 
racy with  Demourier.  He  was  convicted  of  conspiring  against  the  unity 
and  indivisibility  of  the  Republic  ;  that  is,  of  attempting  to  form  a  fed- 
eral government  in  France. 

Note  ^3. 

There  is  no  instance  of  idolatrous  worship  recorded  in  histoiy,  that 
displays  more  blind  superstition,  than  the  celebration  of  the  festival  of 
Reason.  The  idol  adored,  is  not  the  same  as  those  worshiped  by  the 
ancient  Druids,  or  modern  Hindoos ;  but  it  is  still  an  idol,  and  the  pa- 
gan world  can  not  furnish  a  more  striking  instance  to  prove  that  men 
will  forever  worship  something,  whether  a  cat,  a  bird,  an  oak,  the  sun, 
the  moon,  fire,  or  the  Temple  of  Reason.  Totally  immaterial  is  it,  what 
the  idol  is;  the  deity  of  the  day  has  no  connection  with  men's  happi- 
ness, otherwise  than  as  he  is  visible ;  he  strikes  the  senses ;  he  rouses 
the  passions  of  the  multitude  ;  and  they  believe  he  is  propitious  to  them — 
how  or  in  what  manner  they  never  know  or  inquire.  The  oak  of  the 
Druids  was  just  as  good  and  powerful  a  deity,  as  the  temple  or  altar  of 
Reason.  The  oak  inspired  its  votaries  with  superstition  and  enthusi- 
asm ;  and  that  is  precisely  the  effect  of  the  French  festival  of  Reason ; 
for  of  all  fanatics  that  ever  existed,  the  French  appear,  in  all  that  re- 
spects what  they  call  philosophy,  to  be  the  least  rational.  The  follow- 
ing is  the  account  of  the  festival. 

Paris,  Nov.  12. 

A  grand  festival  dedicated  to  reason  and  truth,  was  yesterday  cele- 
brated in  the  ci-devant  cathedral  of  Paris.  In  the  middle  of  this  church 
was  erected  a  mount,  and  on  it  a  very  plain  temple,  the  facade  of  which 
bore  the  following  inscription  :  A  la  Philosophic.  Before  the  gate  of 
this  temple  was  placed  the  Torch  of  Truth,  in  the  summit  of  the  mount, 
on  the  Altar  of  Reason,  spreading  light.  The  Convention  and  all  the 
constituted  authorities  assisted  at  the  ceremony. 

Two  rows  of  young  girls  dressed  in  white,  each  wearing  a  crown  of 
oak  leaves,  crossed  before  the  Altar  of  Reason,  at  the  sound  of  repub- 
lican music  ;  each  of  the  girls  inclined  before  tlie  torch,  and  ascended 

5 


34  REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE. 

the  summit  of  the  mountain.  Liberty  then  came  out  of  the  Temple  of 
Philosophy  toward  a  throne  made  of  grass,  to  receive  the  homage  of 
the  Republicans  of  both  sexes,  who  sung  a  hymn  in  her  praise,  extend- 
ing their  arms  at  the  same  time  toward  her.  Liberty  descended  after- 
ward to  return  to  the  temple,  and  on  re-entering  it,  she  turned  about, 
casting  a  look  of  benevolence  on  her  friends.  When  she  got  in,  every 
one  expressed  with  enthusiasm  the  sensations  which  the  goddess  exci- 
ted in  them,  by  songs  of  joy,  and  they  swore  never  to  cease  to  be  faith- 
ful to  her. 

How  little  men  see  their  own  errors.  All  this  ceremony  and  parade 
about  reason  and  liberty,  at  a  time  when  the  governing  faction  were 
wading  to  the  altar  through  rivers  of  innocent  blood ;  at  a  time  when 
the  tyranny,  imprisonments,  and  massacres  of  a  century,  are  crowded 
into  a  single  year. 

One  absurdity  more  must  be  noticed.  The  Jacobins  have  displayed 
an  implacable  hatred  of  royalty  and  every  thing  that  belongs  to  it. 
Even  devices  of  kingly  origin  on  coins  and  rings  have  not  escaped  their 
vengeance.  Yet  these  same  people  have  borrowed  the  principal  em- 
blem of  royalty  themselves,  to  adorn  this  festival ;  and  two  rows  of 
young  girls  are  furnished  with  crowns  of  oak  leaves. 

Note  4. 
of   aristocracy. 

There  is  not  a  word  in  the  English  or  French  language  so  much  ban- 
died about  by  designing  men,  and  so  little  understood  by  their  echoing 
agents,  as  the  word  aristocrat.  A  few  days  ago  an  honest  man,  by  no 
means  the  least  informed,  was  asked  if  he  knew  the  meaning  of  it ;  he 
replied  very  ingenuously,  "  he  did  not  understand  it,  but  he  supposed  it 
lo  be  some  French  word."  Yet  this  word  is  used  with  great  effect  to 
excite  party  prejudices. 

Aristocracy  in  Europe  denotes  a  distinction  of  men,  by  birth,  titles, 
property,  or  office.  In  America  this  distinction  does  not  exist  with  re- 
spect to  hereditary  titles  or  office ;  nor  with  respect  to  birth  and  prop- 
erty, any  further  than  the  minds  of  men,  from  nature  or  habit,  are  in- 
clined to  pay  more  than  ordinary  respect  to  persons  who  are  born  of 
parents  that  have  been  distinguished  for  something  eminent,  and  to  per- 
sons who  have  large  estates.  This  propensity,  whether  natural  or  ha- 
hitual,  exists — no  man  can  deny  it ;  and  this  is  all  Mr.  Adams,  in  his 
defense,  means  by  the  words  well-bor?i ;  an  expression  that  has  rung  a 
thousand  changes  from  New  Hampshire  to  Georgia.  Yet  the  very  de- 
claimers  who  fill  our  cars  with  a  perpetual  din  on  this  subject,  are  ex- 
emplifying the  truth  of  this  natural  aristocracy,  in  almost  every  nego- 
tiation of  their  lives.  The  most  noisy  democrat  in  this  country,  who 
feasts  upon  the  words  liberty  and  equality,  can  not  put  a  son  apprentice 
to  business,  without  searching  for  a  respectable  family  to  take  him  ;  nor 
marry  a  son  or  daughter,  without  inquiring  particularly  into  the  family, 
coruiections  and  fortune  of  the  proposed  partner.  It  may  be  said,  this 
propensity  to  pay  respect  to  such  things  is  wrong  and  vicious  ;  be  it  so — 
the  propensity  exists — these  things  are  true — they  can  not  be  contradict- 


REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE.  i^ 

ed.  And  Mr.  Adams,  instead  of  advocating  aristocracy  and  its  exclu- 
"Ifeive  privileges,  makes  it  a  main  point  in  his  defense,  to  explain  the  na- 
ture and  tendency  of  this  principle  in  men,  and  to  point  out  cautions 
and  expedients  for  guarding  against  its  pernicious  effects  in  government. 
His  labors  to  check  this  spirit  of  aristocracy  in  America,  entitle  him  to 
the  character  of  a  firm,  intelligent  republican. 

If  the  word  aristocracy  is  applicable  to  any  thing  in  America,  it  is  to 
that  personal  injluence  which  men  derive  from  offices,  the  merit  of  em- 
inent services,  age,  talents,  wealth,  education,  virtue,  or  whatever  other 
circumstance  attracts  the  attention  of  people.  The  distinguishing  cir- 
cumstances of  nobility  in  Europe,  are  hereditary  titles,  estates  and  offi- 
ces, which  give  the  possessor  some  claims  or  rights  above  others.  In 
this  country,  most  of  the  circumstances  which  command  particular  re- 
spect, are  personal,  accidental  or  acquired,  and  none  of  them  give  the 
possessor  any  claims  or  rights  over  his  fellow  citizens.  Yet  the  cir- 
cumstances which  do  actually  give  this  personal  injluence^  which  forms 
a  kind  of  natural  or  customary  aristocracy,  exist  universally  among 
men,  savage  or  civilized,  in  every  country  and  under  every  form  of 
government.  The  circumstances  are  either  natural,  or  arise  necessa- 
rily out  of  the  state  of  society.  Helvetius  and  other  profound  philoso- 
phers may  write  as  much  as  they  please,  to  prove  man  to  be  wholly 
the  creature  of  his  own  making,  the  work  of  education ;  but  facts  oc- 
cur every  hour  to  common  observation,  to  prove  the  theory  false.  The 
difference  of  intellectual  faculties  in  man  is  visible  almost  as  soon  as 
he  is  born,  and  is  more  early  and  more  distinctly  marked  than  the  dif- 
ference of  his  features.  And  this  natural  difference  of  capacity  origi- 
nates a  multitude  of  other  differences  in  after  life,  which  create  dis- 
tinctions ;  that  is,  they  give  rise  to  those  circumstances  of  talents,  wit, 
address,  property  and  office,  to  which  men  invariably  pay  a  kind  of  re- 
spect. This  respect  gives  personal  influence  to  the  possessor,  in  some 
circle,  either  small  or  great,  and  this  personal  influence  is  the  natural 
aristocracy  of  men,  in  all  countries  and  in  all  governments.  It  exists 
among  the  native  Indians ;  it  has  existed  in  every  republic  on  earth : 
from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  the  humble  apple-dealer  at 
the  corner  of  Flymarket,  every  person  enjoys  a  portion  of  this  person- 
al  influence  among  his  particular  acquaintance.  It  exists  in  govern- 
ment, in  churches,  in  towns,  in  parishes,  in  private  societies  and  in  fam- 
ilies. 

It  is  this  insensible  aristocracy  of  opinion  and  respect,  that  now  forms 
the  firmest  band  of  union  between  the  States,  The  long  and  eminent 
services  of  our  worthy  President,  have  filled  all  hearts  with  gratitude 
and  respect ;  and  by  means  of  this  gratitude  and  respect,  and  the  confi- 
dence they  inspire  in  his  talents  and  integrity,  he  has  a  greater  influ- 
ence in  America  than  any  nobleman,  perhaps  than  any  prince,  in  Eu- 
rope. This  respect  has  hitherto  restrained  the  violence  of  parties : 
whatever  be  the  difference  of  opinion  on  subjects  of  government,  all 
parties  agree  to  confide  in  the  President.  This  is  the  effect  of  his  per- 
sonal influence,  and  not  a  respect  for  the  laws  or  constitution  of  the  Uni- 
ted States.  Americans  rally  round  the  man,  rather  than  round  the  ex- 
ecutive  authority  of  the  Union.  And  it  is  a  problem  to  be  solved,  after 
his  leaving  the  office,  what  energj-  or  force  really  exists  in  the  execu- 
tive authority  itself. 


\. 


86  REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE. 

If  my  ideas  of  natural  aristocracy  are  just,  the  President  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  is  a  most  influential,  and  most  useful  aristocrat ;  and  long 
may  America  enjoy  the  blessings  of  such  aristocracy  ! 

A  similar  personal  influence  is  observable  in  otlier  men.  In  every 
state,  in  every  town,  there  are  some,  who,  by  their  talents,  wealth,  ad- 
dress, or  old  age  and  wisdom,  acquire  and  presen'e  a  superior  share  of 
influence  in  their  districts.  This  influence  may  do  good  or  hurt,  as  it  is 
coupled  with  good  or  bad  intentions.  But  that  when  confined  to  small 
districts,  as  towns  and  parishes,  it  has  most  generally  a  good  effect, 
there  is  no  doubt.  An  old  respected  citizen  has  a  thousand  opportuni- 
ties of  correcting  the  opinions,  settling  the  quarrels,  and  restraining  the 
passions  of  his  neighbors.  This  personal  influence  in  small  districts  is 
most  remarkable  in  some  parts  of  New  England  ;  wherever  it  exists, 
peace  and  concord  distinguish  the  neighborhood ;  and  where  by  any 
accident,  it  does  not  exist,  society  is  distracted  with  quarrels  and  parties, 
which  produce  an  uncommon  depravity  of  morals. 

One  remark  further.  The  people  who  contend  most  for  liberty  and 
equality,  and  who  are  most  alarmed  at  aristocracy,  are,  in  America,  the 
greatest  dupes  of  this  aristocracy  of  personal  influence.  Federal  men 
not  only  respect  the  President,  but  they  make  the  constitution  and  laws 
of  the  United  States  their  standard  ;  at  least  they  aim  to  do  it.  On 
the  other  hand,  their  opposers  rally  round  the  standard  of  particular 
men.  There  are  certain  leading  men  in  the  antifederal  interest,  who 
have  more  absolute  authority  over  the  opinions  of  that  party,  than  is 
possessed  by  any  man  in  America,  except  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  As  the  aristocracy  of  America  consists  in  this  personal  influ- 
ence, the  men  who  in  private  associations  have  the  most  of  this  influ- 
ence, are,  in  their  sphere,  the  most  complete  aristocrats.  And  at  this 
time,  certain  influential  men  in  the  democratic  clubs,  are  the  most  influ- 
ential aristocmts  there  are  in  America  among  private  citizens. 

While  this  personal  influence  is  governed  by  good  motives,  or  limited 
to  small  districts,  it  is  not  dangerous  and  may  be  useful.  When  it  ex- 
tends far,  it  may  be  useful  or  dangerous,  according  as  it  is  directed  by 
good  or  vicious  men.  It  is  always  to  be  watched — in  public  affairs,  it 
is  controlled  by  the  laws ;  in  clubs  and  private  citizens,  it  has  no  re- 
straint but  the  consciences  of  men  ;  and  it  is  to  be  watched  with  double 
vigilance,  as  its  danger  is  in  proportion  to  its  extent. 

Note  5. 

It  is  remarked  that  the  Estates  General  in  France,  on  their  first  as- 
sembling May  5,  1789,  commenced  their  important  labors  with  a  sol- 
emn act  of  devotion.  Preceded  by  the  clergy  and  followed  by  the 
king,  the  representatives  of  the  nation  repaired  to  the  temple  of  God, 
accompanied  by  an  immense  crowd,  and  offered  up  vows  and  prayers 
for  success. 

Contrast  this  with  the  late  severe  laws  respecting  the  clergy,  and  the 
abolition  of  Christianity.  Some  of  the  Convention  pretend  to  entertain 
a  respect  for  morality;  yet  as  early  as  1791,  before  they  had  pro- 
ceeded to  publish  atheism  as  a  national  creed,  one  of  the  members  in 
debate  declared  it  "  impossible  for  a  society  to  exist  without  an  immu- 


EEVOLUTION    IN   FRANCE.  87 

table  and  eternal  system  of  morality ;"  and  this  declaration  was  fol- 
lowed with  rejjeated  and  loud  bursts  of  laughter.  This  is  an  instance 
selected  from  thousands  to  show  their  contempt  of  every  thing  that 
looks  like  the  obligations  of  religion  and  morality. — (Moniteur,  15  No- 
vember, 1791.) 

Note  6. 

i  The  following  remarks  of  Mr.  Neckar,  who  was  in  France  and  ob- 
served all  the  arts  invented  by  the  Jacobins  to  get  command  of  the  peo- 
ple, are  too  much  in  point  to  be  omitted. 

"  It  was  an  artful  contrivance,  the  success  of  which  was  certain,  to 
involve  the  constitution  in  two  words,  liherty  and  equality.  Men  of 
sense  would  perceive  that  between  these  ideas,  and  a  just  conception  of 
a  political  institution,  there  was  a  vast  distance.  But  the  people  are  to 
be  acted  upon  only  by  reducing  things  to  a  small  compass  ;  it  is  by 
restricting  their  ideas  to  the  narrow  circle  of  their  feelings,  and  absorb- 
ing their  passions  in  a  phrase,  that  we  become  their  masters.  This  ob- 
ject accomplished,  a  watchword,  or  in  its  stead  an  outward  token,  a 
mark  of  distinction,  the  color  or  fold  of  a  ribin.,  has  greater  effect  than 
the  wisdom  of  a  Solon  or  the  eloquence  of  a  Demosthenes.  Such  are 
the  multitude — such  the  description  of  the  empire  that  may  be  obtained 
over  them ;  and  criminal  indeed  are  those  who  take  advantage  of  their 
weakness,  and  practice  arts  to  deceive  them,  rather  than  to  render  them 
happy  by  the  sole  authority  of  reason  and  morality." — (Neckar  on 
Exec.  Power,  Vol.  II,  269.) 

The  emissaries  of  the  Jacobins  are  attempting  to  make  themselves 
masters  of  the  people  in  America  by  the  same  means — by  clubs  and  a 
button.,  or  other  badge  of  distinction.  Detestable  is  the  artifice,  and 
may  confusion  be  the  portion  of  the  Jesuitical  incendiaries,  who  are 
thus  secretly  planting  enmity  and  sedition  in  our  peaceful  countiy ! 

Note  7. 

Of  the  ferociousness  of  civil  war,  history  furnishes  innumerable 
proofs ;  and  the  people  of  France  are  daily  presenting  new  examples 
of  the  sanguinary  spirit  of  all  parties  in  that  distracted  country.  The 
following  official  letter  offers  a  specimen. 

Letter  from  the  President  and  MemJiers  composing  the  Military  Committee  with  the 
Army  of  the  West,  to  the  commonalty  of  Paris,  dated  Saumur,  6  Kizose,  (Dec.  25.) 

"  We  have  to  communicate  to  you  the  interesting  news  of  the  total 
destruction  of  the  banditti  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Loire.  There  are 
here  and  there  yet  some  small  remains  of  these  monsters  in  the  interior 
part  of  La  Vendee,  but  as  our  armies  are  no  longer  obliged  to  divide 
themselves,  they  will  undoubtedly  soon  clear  the  whole  country.  Those 
who  solicit  the  Convention  to  prevent  the  great  measures  of  public 
welfare,  and  try  to  inspire  them  with  a  false  compassion,  are  either 
traitors  or  egotists.  If  you  had  seen  like  me,  what  this  fanatic  herd  is 
capable  of !  Patriots  thrown  into  the  fire  alive,  others  cut  and  chopped 
to  pieces.  Two  days  before  the  siege  of  Angers,  in  a  country  which 
was  supposed  to  be  all  sacred  to  liberty,  three  hundred  soldiers  were 


/ir30BC4 


38  REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE. 

assassinated  by  these  monsters,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Chemeville,  and 
nevertheless  the  evening  before  they  had  cried  Vive  la  Republique ! 
and  declared  that  they  sincerely  repented  of  their  errors :  and  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  this  unhappy  country  similar  events  have  taken  place. 
(Signed)  Felix  &  Millie." 

It  is  surprising  that  men  will  be  guilty  of  the  most  direct  and  palpa- 
ble contradictions,  and  yet  they  will  not  see  them — they  can  not  be 
convinced  of  them.  The  military  committee  call  the  insurgents  a  ban- 
ditti, a  fanatic  herd :  accuse  them  of  throwing  patriots  into  the  fire 
alive,  and  chopping  them  to  pieces.  Yet  with  the  same  breath,  they 
declare  the  news  of  their  total  extirpation  by  shooting,  drowning,  and 
beheading  them  in  cool  blood.  Besides,  who  began  these  scenes  of  car- 
nage ?  The  patriots,  so  called ;  the  Jacobins  and  their  adherents. 
The  massacre  of  the  10th  of  August,  and  2d  and  3d  of  September, 
were  the  first  scenes  of  the  bloody  drama  that  has  been  exhibiting  for 
two  years  in  that  populous  country.  In  the  first  scenes  of  the  tragedy 
several  thousand  men  fell  victims — many  of  them  not  even  suspected 
of  disaflection  to  the  cause  of  liberty.  Who  does  not  see  the  massacre 
of  St.  Bartholomew  revived  in  all  its  horrors  ?  Change  but  the  names 
of  Romanists  and  Protestants,  to  Jacobins  and  Royalists,  and  the  same 
scpne  is  presented.  The  apparent  motives  are  different,  but  analogous. 
The  Romanists  put  to  death  the  Protestants  in  1572,  because  they  op- 
posed the  power  of  the  Romanists.  They  opposed  Catherine  of  Medi- 
cis,  and  the  Duke  of  Guise  ;  and  the  latter,  thinking  them  troublesome, 
pronounced  them  traitors  and  heretics — a  scheme  of  universal  assassi- 
nation was  formed,  and  the  king,  Charles  IX,  gave  his  assent  to  it. 
On  that  dreadful  night,  the  sound  of  a  bell  was  the  signal  for  rallying, 
and  the  assassins  were  let  loose  upon  the  unsuspecting  Protestants. 
Five  thousand  in  Paris,  and  twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand  in  France, 
fell  victims  to  the  savage  fury  of  the  dogs  of  faction.  All  this  was  to 
serve  God  and  religion. 

Draw  a  parallel  between  this  scene  and  the  massacre  of  August  and 
*, September,  1792.  The  popular  party  suspected  treason  in  their  oppo- 
sers.  Without  trial  or  proof  they  must  be  exterminated.  A  banditti  is 
prepared,  from  Paris  and  Mai*seilles.  At  midnight  the  bell  gives  the 
signal  for  rallying  ;  the  populace  collect  and  the  bloody  work  is  begun — 
the  Swiss  guards,  all  suspected  persons,  priests  and  prisoners  fall  a  sac- 
rifice, in  the  indiscriminate  slaughter.  In  these  massacres,  six  or  seven 
thousand  persons  are  murdered — and  for  what  ?  Why  the  old  stale  plea 
of  necessity  is  called  in  to  justify  it ;  and  liberty  in  this  case,  as  religion 
in  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  is  made  the  stalking  horse  to  drive 
the  trade  of  butchering  their  fellow  men.  The  truth  is,  religion  in  one 
case  and  liberty  in  the  other  directly  forbid  all  such  outrages.  It  is^ac- 
tion.  Men  are  always  the  same  ferocious  animals,  when  guided  by  pas- 
sion and  loosed  from  the  restraints  of  law.  Let  parties  grow  warm — 
let  their  passions  be  inflamed — let  them  believe  one  man  is  the  enemy 
of  another — let  opposition  exasperate  them — and  it  is  only  for  some  dar- 
ing demagogue  to  cry,  your  religion,  or  your  liberty  is  in  danger — your 
enemies  are  heretics  or  traitors — they  must  be  exterminated — and  the 
biurderous  work  begins,  and  seldom  ends  till  one  party  crushes  the  other. 


REVOLUTION    IN    FRANCE.  89^ 

In  all  cases  of  this  kind,  without  one  solitary  exception  on  record,  faction 
ends  in  tyranny — the  victorious  party,  even  with  the  word  liberty  inces- 
santly on  their  tongues,  never  failing  to  exercise  over  the  defeated  party 
the  most  cruel  vengeful  acts  of  domination. 

This  is  a  most  interesting  subject  to  Americans ;  as  the  seeds  of  fac- 
tion, the  bane  of  republics,  seem  to  be  sown  by  an  industrious  party  in 
America,  and  God  only  knows  what  will  be  the  fruit  of  these  things. 
So  strong  is  the  impression  on  my  mind,  that  the  present  situation  of 
Europe,  and  our  attachment  to  the  French  cause,  require  all  the  caution 
and  vigilance  of  government  and  good  sense,  to  save  this  country  from 
running  mad  in  theories  of  popular  constitutions,  and  plunging  itself  into 
the  evils  of  faction  and  anarchy,  that  I  beg  leave  to  subjoin  the  following 
facts  and  remarks  on  this  subject. 

The  manner  in  which  the  reports  to  the  National  Convention  men- 
tion the  destruction  of  the  rebels  at  La  Vendee,  many  of  them  honest 
deluded  countiy  people,  fills  the  reader  with  horror.  "  Our  soldiers, 
hand  to  hand,  cut  them  down  in  front  of  their  cannon.  Streets,  roads, 
plains  and  marshes  were  encumbered  with  the  dead  ;  we  marched  over 
heaps  of  the  slain."  "  This  banditti,  these  monsters — this  army  of  rob- 
bers is  destroyed."  "  This  war  of  rogues  and  peasants."  "  It  would 
have  done  your  heart  good  to  see  these  soldiers  of  Jesus  and  Louis  XVII, 
throwing  themselves  into  the  marshes,  or  obliged  to  surrender."  "  Five 
hundred  rebels  were  brought  in ;  they  implored  pardon,  which  was  re- 
fused— they  were  all  put  to  death."  "  Six  hundred  were  brought  to 
Acenis  ;  eight  hundred  to  Angers  and  a  great  number  to  Saumer — the 
representatives  of  the  people  would  rid  the  earth  of  them  by  ordering 
them  to  be  thrown  into  the  Loire."  "  The  late  actions  on  the  Vendee 
have  cost  the  lives  of  forty  thousand  persons."  "  The  civil  war  the  last 
summer  is  supposed  to  have  cost  France  two  hundred  thousand  lives." 
These  are  the  accounts  we  have  received  from  France.  "  The  rebels 
have  been  nearly  all  killed — the  royalists  have  been  all  massacred — 
the  prisoners  are  so  numerous  that  the  guillotin  is  not  sufficient — I  have 
taken  the  method,"  says  Garrier,  "  of  having  them  all  shot  to  death." 
These  are  the  words  of  the  triumphant  republicans.  Nay,  two  brothers 
finding  a  third  brother  among  the  rebels,  demanded  he  should  be  tried 
by  the  military  committee. 

But  what  exceeds  all  the  descriptions  of  barbarity  hitherto  known  in 
America,  is  the  speech  of  Collot  D'Herbois  in  the  National  Convention. 
"  Jacobins !  some  persons  wish  to  moderate  the  revolutionary  move- 
ment ;  take  care  of  it ;  never  forget  what  Robespiere  told  you  on  this 
subject.  Some  persons  wish  to  make  you  establish  a  committee  of 
clemency.  No  clemency  ! — be  always  Jacobins  and  Mountaineers,  and 
libei'ty  shall  be  saved." 

Such  are  the  terrible  effects  of  civil  war,  the  offspring  of  faction.  For- 
eign wars  are  conducted  with  more  humanity  :  it  is  in  civil  wars  only 
that  men  turn  savages,  and  exult  over  the  mangled  carcases  of  their 
fathers,  brethren  and  fellow  citizens. 


-k 


r 


H^  REVOLtJTIOK    IN    FRANCE. 


CONCLUSION. 

Those  who  suppose  France  now  in  possession  of  a  free  government, 
are  mistaken.  At  no  period  has  France  experienced  a  despotism  so 
severe  and  bloody,  as  the  present  authority  of  the  Convention,  backed 
by  a  full  treasury  and  more  than  a  million  of  disciplined  troops.  This 
severe  tyranny  has  imprisoned  and  executed  more  French  citizens  in 
eighteen  months  past,  than  had  been  thrown  into  the  Bastile  for  three 
centuries,  preceding  its  demolition. 

Nor  are  the  French  now  fighting  for  internal  liberty ;  they  are  fight- 
ing against  external  foes  ;  a  vile  league  of  tyrants  tl^at  have  unwarrant- 
ably attempted  to  control  the  internal  affairs  of  France.  God  grant  that 
they  may  be  defeated,  and  severely  chastised  for  their  insolence  ! 

It  is  this  unprecedented  league  of  princes  that  now  gives  union  and 
energy  to  the  French  nation.  It  is  perhaps  the  sole  principle  of  union. 
When  this  combination  shall  be  dissolved,  and  France  left  to  act  only 
upon  herself^  more  than  half  the  revolution  will  still  remain  to  be  effect- 
ed. France  will  then  have  to  conquer  the  errors  of  her  legislators  and 
the  passions  of  a  turbulerd  populace.  She  will  find  a  defective  consti- 
tution and  feeble  laws — she  will  find  violent  parties,  strong  prejudices, 
unbridled  licentiousness  to  be  subdued.  Instead  of  one  tyrant  or  a  con- 
vention of  tyrants,  she  will  find  a  multitude  of  little  tyrants  in  each  of 
her  forty-five  thousand  towns  and  villages.  Anarchy,  disorder  and  pro- 
scriptions will  afflict  her  for  some  years ;  and  probably  the  present  Con- 
vention and  their  successors  will  be  buried  in  the  ruins  of  the  present 
paper  constitution  of  government. 

But  society  can  not  exist  without  government.  Experience  and  severe 
calamities  will  ultimately  teach  the  French  nation,  that  government  im- 
mediately in  the  hands  of  the  people,  of  citizens  collected  without  law, 
and  proceeding  without  order,  is  the  most  violent,  irregular,  capricious 
and  dangerous  species  of  despotism — a  despotism,  infinitely  more  terri- 
ble than  the  fixed  steady  tyranny  of  a  monarch,  as  it  may  spring  up  in 
a  moment,  and  unexpectedly  spread  devastation  and  ruin,  at  any  time, 
in  any  place,  and  among  any  class  of  citizens.  The  tyranny  of  a  mon- 
arch is  the  steady  gale,  which  gives  time  to  prepare  for  its  ravages;  it 
enables  the  seaman  to  clear  his  decks  and  hand  his  sails — the  farmer  to 
leave  his  field,  to  shut  his  doors  and  shelter  himself  and  his  herds  from 
the  impending  storm.  Bat  popular  despotism  is  a  whirlwind,  a  tornado 
of  passions ;  it  collects  in  a  moment ;  a  calm  clear  sky  is  instantly 
darkened,  and  furious  winds,  bursting  on  their  aflrightcned  victims 
while  helpless  and  unguarded,  sweep  away  the  fruits  of  their  labor,  and 
bury  them  in  the  ruins. 

The  French  will  learn  this  important  truth,  that  the  assembly  of  rep- 
resentatives, who  are  to  govern  twenty-six  millions  of  people,  is  not  to 
be  a  company  of  slage-playei*s,  whose  speeches  are  to  be  regulated  by 
the  hisses  and  acclamations  of  a  promiscuous  collection  of  men  in  the 
galleries.  They  will  learn  that  a  Paris  mob  is  not  to  govern  France, 
and  that  the  galleries  of  the  Convention  must  be  silenced,  or  Franco 
will  be  enslaved.  In  short  the  French  people  must  learn  that  an  enthu- 
siasm, necessary  to  animate  her  citizens  in  time  of  war,  will  be  a  source 


REVOLUTION    IN    FKANCE.  41 

of  infinite  disorder  in  time  of  peace ;  that  passions,  essential  to  them 
when  engaging  a  foreign  enemy,  will  be  fatal  to  their  own  government; 
that  in  lieu  of  private  wills,  the  Imos  must  govern ;  and  that  parties  must 
bend  their  stubborn  opinions  to  some  conciliatory  plan  of  government, 
on  which  a  great  majority  of  citizens  can  coalesce  and  harmonize. 
When  all  this  is  done,  they  must  learn  that  the  executive  power  must 
be  vested  in  a  single  hand,  call  him  monarch,  doge,  president,  governor, 
or  what  they  please  ;  and  to  secure  liberty,  the  executive  must  have 
force  and  energy.  They  must  also  learn  a  truth,  sanctioned  by  numer- 
ous experiments,  that  legislative  power,  vested  in  two  houses,  is  exer- 
cised with  more  safety  and  effect,  than  when  vested  in  a  single  assem- 
bly. The  conclusion  of  the  whole  business  will  be,  that  civil  war  and 
the  blood  of  half  a  million  of  citizens,  will  compel  the  nation  to  renounce 
the  idle  theories  of  upstart  philosophers,  and  return  to  the  plain  substan- 
tial maxims  of  wisdom  and  experience.  Then,  and  not  before,  will 
France  enjoy  liberty.  JJIB 

Americans !  be  not  deluded.  In  seeking  liberty,  France  has  gone  ''^'~,' 
beyond  her.  You,  my  countrymen,  if  you  love  liberty,  adhere  to  your 
constitution  of  government.  The  moment  you  quit  that  sheet-anchor, 
you  are  afloat  among  the  surges  of  passion  and  the  rocks  of  error ; 
threatened  every  moment  with  shipwreck.  Heaven  grant  that  while 
Europe  is  agitated  with  a  violent  tempest,  in  which  palaces  are  shaken, 
and  thrones  tottering  to  their  base,  the  republican  government  of  Amer- 
ica, in  which  liberty  and  the  rights  of  man  are  embarked,  fortunately 
anchored  at  an  immense  distance,  on  the  margin  of  the  gale,  may  be 
enabled  to  ride  out  the  storm,  and  land  us  safely  on  the  shores  of  peace 
and  political  tranquillity.  m 

New  York,  1794. 


42 


CHAPTER   II. 
THE   RIGHTS   OF   NEUTRALS. 

Within  the  last  two  hundred  years,  many  able  pens  have  been  em- 
ployed, in  aiscertaining  and  defining  the  principles  which  do  or  ought  to 
regulate  the  conduct  of  independent  nations  toward  each  other.  These 
principles  have  been  discussed  under  the  various  titles  of  the  "  Laws  of 
Nations,"  "  the  Rights  of  War  and  Peace,"  "  the  Rights  of  Neutral  and 
Belligerent  Powers."  In  some  of  these  principles,  which  are  evidently 
founded  on  moral  justice,  all  nations  and  all  men  are  agreed  ;  others  of 
them,  notwithstanding  the  labors  of  Grotius,  Puffendorf,  Burlemaqui, 
Vattel,  and  other  learned  authors,  remain  unsettled,  and  subject  to  be 
varied,  enforced  or  annulled,  by  temporary  stipulations  in  public  trea- 
ties. Every  war  occasions  the  infraction  of  former  treaties,  and  by 
varying  the  relative  situation  of  nations,  in  regard  to  their  commerce  or 
connections,  renders  it  necessary  or  convenient  for  princes  and  states 
to  deny  the  validity  of  principles,  which  they  themselves  formerly  con- 
tended for  with  fleets  and  armies,  and  had  sanctioned  by  their  express 
agreement  in  anterior  conventions. 

Among  ancient  barbarous  nations,  an  almost  unrestrained  piracy  pre- 
ceded fair  commerce.  Not  only  goods,  but  the  persons  of  men  and 
women  were  the  objects  of  plunder,  the  prizes  of  naval  valor,  in  an- 
cient Greece,  Rome,  and  among  the  Baltic  nations.*  Nor  was  war  on 
land  excited  by  very  different  motives,  or  conducted  on  very  different 
principles.  Armies  fought  originally  for  superiority  and  spoil  only ; 
and  it  was  not  till  the  three  hundred  and  forty-ninth  year  of  Rome, 
that  the  soldiers  of  that  commonwealth  received  wages  in  money — 
their  only  reward  being  the  plunder  of  the  vanquished.!  Hence  we 
are  not  to  look  solely  to  the  ancients,  for  the  principles  of  equity  in  na- 
tional intercourse.  The  early  state  of  nations  was  a  state  of  war ;  men 
chose  to  plunder,  rather  than  to  earn  their  subsistence  by  labor.  A 
martial  life  was  their  pride  and  glory  ;  labor  was  drudgery  beneath  the 
honorable  rank  of  a  soldier,  and  reserved  for  the  occupation  of  slaves 
and  women. f  Hence  we  are  to  distrust  the  morality  of  maxims  which 
derive  their  authority  from  nations  governed  by  military  principles  and 
habits.  We  are  not  to  suffer  the  imposing  title  of  the  "  rights  of  war," 
to  regulate  entirely  our  opinions,  concerning  the  fitness  and  propriety  of 
those  maxims.  It  has  not  been  without  the  unceeising  efforts  of  great 
and  good  men  for  many  years,  aided  by  the  authority  and  influence  of 
Christianity,  that  the  practice  of  ferocious  nations  has  been  softened 

•Polyb.  2,  2;  Liv.  lib.  9, 1 ;  30, 14  ;  31,  30;  7,  30  ;  9.  1.  Justin.  43,  3.  Mal- 
let's North.  Antiq.  Ch.  13.  In  Scandinavia,  the  sea  was  called  "  the  field  of 
pirates." 

t  Liv.  4,  59;  6,13;  7,16,24,27. 

t  Tacitus,  de  Mor.  Germ.  14.  Charlevoix,  I,  380,  381.  Garcillasso,  8.  Col- 
den's  Hist,  of  Five  Nations,  1,4. 


RIGHTS  OF  NEUTRALS.  48 

down  to  that  degree  of  mildness  and  equity,  which  now  characterizes 
the  laws  of  nations.  And  we  are  not  certain,  that  further  meliorations 
are  not  due  to  natural  and  social  justice,  as  well  as  to  the  tranquillity  of 
mankind.  The  questions  that  agitate  modern  commercial  nations,  re- 
late principally  to  the  rights  of  iieutrality ;  that  is,  to  the  claims  of  na- 
tions, not  engaged  in  war,  to  carry  on  a  free  commerce  with  belliger- 
ent nations ;  and  also  to  secure  to  their  flags  the  privilege  of  protect- 
ing every  species  of  innocent  property.  Every  war  revives  the  ques- 
tion, "what  is  or  is  not  the  law  of  nations.?"  a  question  that  has  divi- 
ded nations  and  writers  on  maritime  law ;  has  combined  and  armed 
powerful  states  and  kingdoms  in  the  defense  of  their  respective  decis- 
ions ;  and  has  been  in  all  cases  determined  by  force,  or  conventions 
founded  on  necessity  or  policy. 

To  the  United  States,  which  an  intervening  ocean  separates  from  the 
seat  of  the  endless  contentions  of  nations  on  the  other  continent,  where 
claims  are  prosecuted  and  defended  by  the  sword,  where  a  treaty  of 
peace  is  but  a  formal  truce,  intended  to  enable  rival  nations  to  recruit 
their  armies,  and  replenish  their  coffers  for  fresh  hostilities ;  to  an  em- 
pire thus  sequestered  from  the  numerous  territorial  causes  of  war,  and 
liable  only  to  be  drawn  into  the  quarrels  of  European  nations,  by  the 
necessity  of  defending  its  commercial  rights ;  a  just  determination  of 
all  questions  relating  to  maritime  law,  is  extremely  interesting  and  im- 
portant. If  belligerent  and  neutral  nations  have  appropriate  and  dis- 
tinct rights,  it  is  of  consequence  that  they  should  be  defined  ;  and  as 
the  United  States  have  in  their  favor  the  chance  of  usually  being  neu- 
tral, when  the  maritime  nations  of  Europe  are  at  war,  it  is  their  inter- 
est to  ascertain  and  preserve,  unabridged,  the  rights  of  neutrals. 
What  these  rights  are,  seems  not  to  be  understood.  When  the  north- 
ern powers,  in  1780,  confederated  to  establish  the  principle,  that  "  free 
ships  make  free  goods,"  the  public  sentiment  in  America,  then  at  war 
with  Great  Britain,  was  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  principle,  and  Con- 
gress explicitly  recognized  it.  Great  Britain,  at  that  time,  remonstrated 
against  the  establishment  of  the  principle,  calling  it  a  "  modern  law"  of 
nations ;  but  was  not  in  a  situation  effectually  to  oppose  the  formidable 
confederacy  by  which  it  was  maintained-  The  peace  of  1783  super 
seded  that  league,  and  the  intercourse  between  the  powers  was  regula 
ted  by  subsequent  treaties. 

The  last  war  has  revived  a  similar  confederacy,  formed  for  the  pur 
pose  of  maintaining  the  same  principle  in  favor  of  neutral  commerce 
The   naval  power  of  Great  Britain  speedily  and  at  one  blow  disarmed 
the  confederacy  of  its  terrors ;  and  the  victory  near  Copenhagen  com 
pelled  the  northern  kingdoms  to  adjust  the  controversy  by  convention 
During  this  eventful  crisis,  it  has  been  found  convenient  in  the  United 
States,  to  abandon  the  principles  contended  for  by  the  Baltic  nations, 
and  to  defend  Great  Britain,  in  asserting  what  is  called  the  "  ancient" 
law  of  nations.     Where  shall  we  look  for  the  motives  of  this  change 
of  sentiment  in  America  ?     Were  the  venerable  fathers  of  the  Revolu- 
tion under  a  cloud,  with  regard  to  this  question,  which  recent  illumina- 
tion has  dispersed  }     Or,  is  the  dereliction  of  the  ground  which  they 
took,  to  be  ascribed  to  the  influence  of  changes  in  the  political  state  of 
Europe,  or  to  the  condition  of  parties  in  the  United  States  } 


%^ 


I 


41  RIGHTS  OF  NEUTRALS. 

Without  attempting  to  answer  these  questions,  I  will  examine  the  his- 
tory of  neutral  rights,  and  endeavor  to  find  the  true  grounds  of  the 
pretensions  of  both  parties.  It  is  only  by  a  detail  of  historical  facts, 
that  we  shall  be  able  to  understand  the  merits  of  the  questions  in  dis- 
pute, and  arrive  to  just  conclusions  respecting  what  is  the  "  law  of 
nations." 

A  writer  in  the  Palladium*  of  Feb.  3,  1801,  undertakes  to  make  his 
readers  believe  that  the  "  modern"  law  of  nations,  that  "  free  ships 
make  free  goods,"  is  a  scheme  of  the  French  government,  formed  to 
cripple  the  power  of  Great  Britain ;  that  it  is  repugnant  to  the  interests 
of  neutrals  themselves ;  that  it  deprives  belligerent  powers  of  the 
rights  of  war ;  that  it  is  no  law  at  all ;  and,  in  short,  to  use  the  jargon 
of  the  writer,  it  is  a  mere  French  humbug.  He  observes,  "  that  na- 
tions at  war  have  a  char  undoubted  rigid,  as  old  as  war  itself,  to  seize 
their  enemies'  goods  wherever  they  can  find  them  on  the  high  seas, 
that  is,  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  any  friendly  nation."  The  writer  pro- 
ceeds to  fill  half  a  column  with  a  series  of  similar  assertions,  which 
will  not  be  here  recited ;  as  a  consideration  of  these  and  some  other 
remarks  in  the  same  paper,  will  more  properly  follow  an  examination 
of  facts  on  this  subject. 

It  is  justly  observed  by  Grotius,  De  jure  Belli  ac  Pads,  lib.  3,  5, 
that  ancient  history  furnishes  no  evidence  of  any  positive  regulations 
made  by  princes  or  states,  on  the  subject  of  the  rights  of  neutral  na- 
tions. All  the  light  which  antiquity  affords,  is  derived  from  a  few  re- 
corded instances  of  the  practice  of  belligerent  powers  ;  a  practice  which 
seems  to  have  been  governed  by  no  fixed  principles,  but  dictated  solely 
by  arbitrary  will.  Grotius  mentions  the  fact  related  by  Polybius,  of 
supplies  furnished  by  the  Romans  to  the  "  enemies"  of  the  Carthagin- 
ians ;  but  he  has  not  stated  all  the  circumstances,  which  were  these  : — 
After  the  close  of  the  first  Punic  war,  the  troops  of  Carthage,  which 
were  mostly  mercenaries  drawn  from  Gaul,  Liguria,  and  other  remote 
countries,  raised  a  mutiny  on  account  of  the  non-payment  of  their  wa- 
ges. This  mutiny  proceeded  to  open  rebellion,  which  menaced  Car- 
thage whh  ruin,  and  was  not  quelled  without  a  three  years'  bloody  war. 
During  this  civil  war,  many  ships  from  Italy  conveyed  supplies  to  the 
rebels.  The  Roman  state  was  then  at  peace  with  Carthage,  and  for 
aught  that  appears,  this  trade  was  carried  on  without  the  knowledge  of 
the  Roman  government.  The  Carthaginians  were  incensed  at  the  Ro- 
man merchants,  and  seizing  them  to  the  number  of  five  hundred,  threw 
them  into  prison.  The  Romans,  says  the  historian,  were  ofl'ended  at 
this  proceeding  of  the  Carthaginians,  and  immediately  demanded  the  re- 
lease of  the  prisoners,  which  was  granted.  This  compliance  so  pleased 
the  Romans,  that  they  released  the  Carthaginian  prisoners,  which  the 
late  war  had  left  in  their  possession,  assisted  the  republic  with  their 
friendly  offices,  gave  permission  to  their  merchants  to  export  any  kind 
of  commodities  to  Carthage,  and  prohibited  them  from  carrying  sup- 
plies to  the  rebels. — (Polyb.  lib.  1,  cap.  6.) 

From  this  account,  it  is  evident  that  no  rules  or  laws  existed  between 
those  nations,  which  regulated  the  conduct  of  neutral  nations  toward 

•  A  newspaper  printed  in  Boston. 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  45 

powers  at  war ;  for  although  it  appears  that  the  furnishing  of  supplies 
to  an  enemy,  was  considered  by  the  Carthaginians  as  an  injury,  yet  the 
punishment  of  the  traders  by  imprisonment  was  also  considered  by  the 
Romans  as  an  affront  and  a  wrong.  And  the  subsequent  prohibition  of 
such  supplies,  is  a  proof  that  no  prior  restraint  was  laid  on  that  species 
of  commerce.  Either,  therefore,  no  principles  or  rules,  in  regard  to 
such  commerce,  were  known  and  recognized  as  a  "  law  of  nations,"  or 
the  punishment  was  left  undefined.  It  is,  however,  to  be  observed,  that 
this  was  a  case  of  assistance  given  to  revolters,  in  arms  against  their 
own  country,  and  can  furnish  no  authority  for  a  case  of  war  between 
two  independent  nations.  A  commerce,  in  the  first  case,  might  be  highly 
improper  and  injurious,  which,  in  the  case  of  two  sovereign  states, 
would  be  perfectly  legal.  It  is  further  to  be  observed,  that  the  word, 
in  the  original,*  denotes  supplies  of  provisions  or  money,  rather  than 
warlike  stores,  though  possibly  it  may  comprehend  every  species  of 
supply,  except  soldiers.t 

Another  instance  of  the  practice  of  ancient  princes,  in  regard  to  a 
trade  with  their  enemies,  is  recorded  by  Plutarch  in  his  life  of  Deme- 
trius, and  cited  by  Grotius.  That  prince  undertook  to  deliver  Athens 
from  the  tyrant  Lachares,  who  had  usurped  the  government.  Whether 
he  was  solicited  to  this  by  the  citizens,  the  historian  does  not  inform  us. 
As  he  approached  the  city,  laying  waste  the  adjacent  country,  with  a 
view  to  cut  off  supplies  of  provisions,  and  reduce  the  city  by  famine, 
he  took  a  ship  laden  with  corn,  bound  to  the  port  of  Athens,  and  hung 
both  the  merchant  and  the  pilot.  This  severity  deterred  others  from 
carrying  supplies  to  the  place,  and  famine  compelled  the  citizens  to  sur- 
render themselves  to  the  prince.  In  this  case,  Athens  was  besieged,  or 
at  least  cut  off  from  supplies  ;  it  therefore  falls  under  the  condition  of 
a  blockaded  place,  with  which,  it  is  agreed  among  writers  and  rulers, 
all  commerce  may  be  justly  interdicted.^  But  the  punishment  inflicted 
on  the  merchant  and  pilot,  is  evidence  that  this  act  of  Demetrius  pro- 
ceeded from  the  arbitrary  will  of  a  tyrant,  and  was  not  justified  by  any 
common  principle  of  public  law,  known  and  recognized  by  nations. 

It  results  from  reason  and  natural  justice,  that  a  nation  at  peace,  fur- 
nishing assistance  to  a  nation  at  war,  with  the  direct  view  of  augment- 
ing its  military  strength,  becomes  an  associate  in  the  war,  and  the  ene- 
my of  the  opposing  nation.  This  principle  is  as  old  as  history — recog- 
nized frequently  in  the  contentions  between  the  Grecian  states,  between 
the  Romans  and  Philip  of  Macedon,  and  between  all  belligerent  powers. 
But  how  far  trade  carried  on  by  a  nation  at  peace,  with  one  party  en- 
gaged in  war,  was  considered  as  affording  such  aid,  ancient  history  fur- 
nishes no  means  of  determining.  Livy,  book  22,  ch.  33,  relates  that 
the  Romans,  during  the  second  Punic  war,  sent  embassadors  to  the  Li- 
gurians,  to  expostulate  with  them,  for  aiding  their  enemies,  the  Cartha- 
ginians, with  supplies  and  troops — "  opibus  auxiliisque  ;"  but  nothing 
further  is  said  on  the  subject.  Hannibal  was  then  in  Italy  ;  the  Romans 
were  contending  for  their  country  and  independence  ;  and  unquestiona- 

•  Choregemas.  t  1  Maccabees,  ch.  viii,  v.  24 — 28.  * 

t  The  limitations  that  morality  ought  to  impose  on  this  principle,  will  be  hereaf- 
ter considered. 


46  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

bly  had  a  right  to  prohibit  every  kind  of  intercourse  with  an  enemy,  in 
the  heart  of  their  country.  Perhaps  supplies  furnished  to  an  army  di- 
rectly, by  a  nation  at  peace,  may  be  always  considered  as  intended  to 
augment  the  military  force  of  an  enemy,  and  render  the  supplying  na- 
tion an  associate  in  the  war.  When  Mago,  the  Carthaginian,  solicited 
the  Gauls  and  Ligurians  to  join  him  and  furnish  him  with  supplies,  the 
Gauls  replied,  that  if  they  assisted  him  openly,  the  Roman  armies  would 
immediately  invade  their  territory ;  they  could  therefore  render  none 
but  clandestine  aid. — (Liv.  29,  5.) 

No  distinction  is  made,  in  the  accounts  of  these  transactions,  between 
supplies  of  provisions,  money  and  soldiers — all  supplies  being  consider- 
ed as  associating  the  supplying  nation  with  the  belligerent  party.  At 
the  same  time,  the  cases  are  not  analogous  to  most  of  those  which  oc- 
cur between  modern  commercial  nations.  The  examples  noted  by  an- 
cient authors,  are  those  in  which  the  aid  was  furnished  directly  to  the 
military ;  and  if  it  was  not  so  intended,  it  actually  did  immediately 
strengthen  a  hostile  army.  The  case  of  the  interruption  of  the  usual 
commerce  of  a  trading  nation  at  peace,  by  a  power  at  war,  on  the  ground 
of  disabling  an  enemy,  by  such  interruption,  and  compelling  him  the 
sooner  to  seek  terms  of  accommodation,  has  not  occurred  to  my  re- 
searches into  the  histories  of  ancient  nations.  The  case  of  Demetrius, 
before  mentioned,  comes  under  the  character  of  supplies  furnished  to  a 
besieged  or  invested  place.  So  that  antiquity  affords  no  precedent  in 
point. 

As  the  earliest  histories  of  nations  give  us  no  clear  light  on  the  sub- 
ject of  neutral  commerce,  so  the  fragments  of  the  celebrated  Rhodian 
laws,  which  are  extant — the  equally  celebrated  laws  of  Oleron  and  Wis- 
buy,  are  silent  on  the  subject.  And  we  find  no  systems  of  regulations 
to  have  been  adopted  and  practiced,  by  maritime  states,  till  a  period 
comparatively  modern.  Grotius  mentions  a  work,  in  the  Italian  lan- 
guage, which  contains  the  ordinances  or  constitutions  of  the  Syrians, 
Cyprians,  French,  Spaniards,  Venetians  and  Genoese,  respecting  this 
subject,  and  presents  us  with  a  summary,  which  will  be  hereafter  reci- 
ted.— (Lib.  3,  annot.) 

From  the  earliest  treaties  extant,  and  other  authorities,  it  appears  that 
commerce,  when  it  first  revived,  after  the  desolating  conquests  of  the 
northern  barbarians,  was  subjected  to  severe  restrictions.  No  mer- 
chant could  resort  to  a  foreign  country  to  trade,  without  a  special  or 
general  license  from  the  prince ;  and  the  first  treaties  between  princes, 
in  regard  to  trade,  were  little  more  than  a  reciprocal  permission  for  their 
subjects  to  trade  in  each  other's  territories.  In  England,  foreign  mer- 
chants, as  late  as  the  fourteenth  century,  were  liable  for  each  other's 
debts,  and  even  punishable  for  each  other's  crimes.  In  1317,  Edward 
II,  at  the  request  of  Alphonsus,  king  of  the  two  Castiles,  granted  safe- 
ty and  freedom  of  commerce  to  the  merchants  of  Biscay,  without  be- 
ing liable  to  be  arrested  or  stopped  for  the  debt  of  another  Spaniard. 
In  1325,  a  similar  privilege  was  extended  to  the  Venetian  merchants ; 
and  as  nations  gradually  emerged  from  barbarity,  and  learned  the 
value  of  commerce,  it  became  usual  to  insert,  in  public  treaties,  clauses 
exempting  traders  from  the  obligation  to  answer  for  the  debts  of  oth- 
ers.—(Anderson's  Com.  Vol.  I,  p.  353,  377,  382.) 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  47 

Previous  to  the  date  of  Magna  Charta,  1215,  the  kings  of  England, 
'jealous  of  the  enterprising  spirit  of  foreigners,  often  issued  orders  pro- 
hibiting merchant-strangers  from  coming  to  England,  except  in  time  of 
public  fairs,  and  then  permitting  them  to  stay  only  forty  days.     The 
forty-eighth  article  of  Magna  Charta  abridged  the  royal  prerogative, 
and  granted  free  liberty  for  foreign  traders,  to  come,  to  remain,  and  to 
buy  and  sell  at  pleasure.     Yet  a  special  permission  to  foreign  merchants, 
to  trade  freely  with  a  country,  has  been  incorporated  into  almost  all 
•  commercial  treaties,  from  that  day  to  the  present.     This  will  not  appear 
extraordinary,  when  we  consider  that  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries, 
and  even  in  the  eleventh,  the  Baltic  and  Mediterranean  pirates  infested 
all  the  western  shore  of  Europe,  so  that  not  a  river,  a  creek,  or  harbor, 
;  was  safe  from  plunderers.     To  secure  the  fair  trader  from  those  robbers, 
r  was  formed  the   great  confederacy  of    the  Hanse  Towns,  and  other 
,vleagues ;  and  hence  it  became  necessary  for  every  prince  or  state,  to 
prohibit  strangers  from  approaching  their  shores,  under  pretense  of 
:  trade,  without  special  permission.     Even  at  a  later  period,  every  for- 
.  eigner  was  liable  to  be  seized,  imprisoned,  and  subjected  to  a  heavy  ran- 
som, to  obtain  his  liberty. 

The  danger  to  a  maritime  state,  from  sudden  attacks  by  sea,  seems  to 
.have  originated  a  claim  to  a  limited  dominion  over  the  waters  of  the 
ocean,  bordering  on  such  state.  And  during  the  piracies  of  the  middle 
ages,  there  was  a  stronger  claim,  if  possible,  to  the  exercise  of  such 
dominion,  than  that  which  now  exists,  in  proportion  as  the  danger  was 
^.greater,  and  the  means  of  naval  defense  less  considerable.  Nor  was  it 
the  professed  pirate  alone,  who  was  to  be  dreaded ;  but  vessels  were 
often  seized  as  plunder,  by  the  subjects  of  powers  not  at  war,  and  by 
inhabitants  not  professed  robbers.  Ancient  writings  are  full  of  com- 
plaints, from  one  prince  to  another,  respecting  such  seizures. — (See  the 
first  volume  of  Anderson  on  Commerce,  in  a  variety  of  passages.) 

These  remarks  are  intended  to  show,  that  the  early  state  of  man  was 
a  state  of  war  and  plunder ;  that  no  system  of  rules  was  ever  adopted 
by  general  consent  of  nations,  to  regulate  their  commercial  intercourse  ; 
but  that  all  the  modern  rules  and  principles,  respecting  neutral  com- 
merce, have  sprung  from  special  ordinances  of  princes  or  particular 
treaties,  or  have  been  imposed  by  great  powers  on  the  weaker  states, 
by  compulsion.  It  will  appear  that  some  of  these  rules  are  supported 
by  natural  law  or  justice,  and  so  far  are  to  be  considered  as  laws  of  na- 
tions. Others  of  them  depend  for  their  authority  on  special  compact ; 
and  others  are  to  be  deemed  direct  violations  of  natural  law  or  justice, 
and  stand  on  no  better  foundations  than  the  arbitrary  will  of  powerful 
states. 

The  most  clear  and  prominent  rule  respecting  neutral  commerce  is, 
that  a  nation  at  peace  shall  not  supply  a  belligerent  with  military  stores. 
It  seems  to  have  been  agreed  by  all  writere  and  states,  that  this  is  a  law 
of  nations.  Yet  we  shall  perhaps  find,  that  this  principle  derives  its 
authority  from  arbitrary  prohibitions  or  treaties ;  at  least,  history  and 
the  signification  of  the  words  by  which  goods  of  this  sort  are  denomi- 
nated, lead  to  this  conclusion.  It  was  an  ancient  practice  for  princes 
and  generals  to  prohibit  all  persons  from  conveying  arms,  money,  men 
and  provisions,  to  their  enemies,  especially  to  armies  and  besieged  gar- 


48  EIGHTS    OF    NEUTKALS. 

risons.  It  does  not  appear  that  they  were  guided,  in  such  restraints,  by 
any  law  or  authority  but  their  arbitrary  will ;  and  hence  the  inhuman 
treatment  which  the  traders  received  from  Demetrius  and  the  Cartha- 
ginians. No  distinction  was  made  between  the  commodities  supplied ; 
every  thing  that  could  aid  the  enemy  was  forbid,  provided  the  prince 
or  commander  thought  such  restraint  would  aid  him  in  reducing  the 
enemy. 

The  same  practice  prevailed  among  princes,  after  the  settlement  of 
the  northern  nations  in  the  southern  countries  of  Europe.  In  1251, 
the  state  of  Genoa  granted  permission  to  the  Florentines  to  trade,  either 
by  sea  or  land,  with  the  Genoese  territories,  provided  they  carried  no 
prohibited  goods,  nor  sailed  with  the  eneinies  of  the  republic.  In  1295, 
the  Emperor  Adolph  complained  of  the  detention  of  some  Hanse  ships 
in  the  English  ports,  laden  with  corn  and  naval  stores,  till  security  should 
be  given  not  to  sail  to  French  ports  with  such  cargoes ;  but  King  Ed- 
ward silenced  his  complaints  by  convincing  him  that  the  goods  were 
contraband.  In  1305,  Edward  I.  gave  free  license  to  the  Flemings  to 
resort  to  England  for  the  purposes  of  trade,  provided  they  should  not 
supply  his  enemies,  the  Scots,  with  arms  and  provisions.  And  in  1313, 
the  same  prince,  after  many  complaints  to  the  Earl  of  Flanders,  for 
furnishing  the  Scots  with  military  stores  and  provisions,  seized  all  the 
Flemish  ships  in  the  port  of  London.  Similar  complaints  for  a  like 
practice  were  made  in  subsequent  years.  The  uneasiness  sometimes 
proceeded  to  open  rupture,  and  gave  rise  to  fresh  agreements  by  trea- 
ty.— (See  And.  Commerce,  Vol.  I,  under  the  respective  years.) 

In  the  year  1352,  Edward  III.  complained  to  the  republic  of  Genoa, 
that  the  Genoese  furnished  his  enemy,  the  French  king,  with  galleys, 
and  expressed  the  hope  that  this  practice  would  be  restrained.  Here 
we  observe  the  English  king  undertook  to  consider  galleys  to  be  con- 
traband ;  that  is,  it  was  his  sovereign  will  and  pleasure  so  to  consider 
them,  as  he  did  all  kinds  of  provisions,  conveyed  to  the  Scots  by  the 
Flemings.  In  1357,  the  Doge  of  Venice  obtained  from  the  same  Ed- 
ward, passports  for  a  certain  number  of  "  galleys  laden  with  merchan- 
dise," to  proceed  without  interruption  to  and  from  Flanders.  This  was 
on  account  of  the  war  between  England  and  France,  and  is  further  ev- 
idence that  the  English  seized  neutral  vessels,  even  merchantmen,  bound 
to  Flanders ;  for  otherwise  such  passports  would  not  have  been  neces- 
sary. These  facts  are  additional  evidence,  that  all  questions  relating  to 
contraband  goods,  depended  on  the  arbitrary  will  and  pleasure  of  the 
belligerent  prince. 

That  such  prohibitions  and  seizures  were  considered  as  illegal,  or  un- 
authorized by  any  law  of  nations,  or  that  the  subjects  of  the  prohibiting 
prince  were  not  governed  by  any  precise  rules  in  their  captures,  is  also 
evident  from  the  indemnifications  granted  by  the  prohibiting  prince,  for 
losses  incurred  by  seizures.  Many  instances  are  on  record,  and  one  in 
1372,  in  which  Edward  III.  stipulated  to  pay  two  thousand  marks,  for 
losses  incurred  by  the  seizure  of  Genoese  merchantmen — with  a  proviso, 
however,  that  the  Genoese  should  not  "  lend  their  ships  nor  men"  to  his 
enemies,  the  Spaniards  and  French.  In  this  instance,  the  compensation 
stipulated  by  Edward,  seems  to  have  been  the  price  with  which  he  pur- 
chased the  neutrality  of  Genoa.     Yet  in  this  same  year,  Edward  found 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  49^ 

means  to  engage  a  squadron  of  Genoese  galleys,  to  aid  him  against 
France. 

In  the  year  1373,  we  find  another  instance  in  which  ordinary  merchan- 
dise was  seized  by  the  English,  as  contraband.  This  consisted  of  wool- 
ens, wool,  and  other  goods,  laden  on  board  of  Florentine  ships,  bound 
from  Bruges  to  Pisa,  taken  under  pretext  of  being  bound  to  Spain,  then 
in  enmity  with  England.  And  in  1375,  we  find  a  respectful  letter  writ- 
ten by  the  Doge  of  Venice,  to  Edward,  requesting  passports  for  five 
galleys  bound  to  Flanders,  whose  Earl  w£is  then  a  vassal  of  France,  the 
enemy  of  England.  These  are  examples  in  which  common  merchan- 
dise was  treated  as  contraband  ;  but  surely  by  no  law,  except  the  sove- 
reign will  of  King  Edward.  To  such  a  length  was  this  despotic  power 
exercised  by  the  kings  of  England,  that  Henry  IV,  in  1399,  granted,  to 
a  private  subject,  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  directing  his  naval  com- 
manders to  seize  on  all  Dutch  ships  in  English  ports,  and  hold  them  un- 
til a  private  debt  due  from  a  merchant  in  Leyden  to  that  subject,  should 
be  paid,  with  costs  and  charges. 

In  1403,  we  find  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Hanse  Towns,  the 
city  of  Lubec,  and  the  city  of  Hamburg,  making  complaints  to  Henry 
IV,  that  his  subjects  had  seized  their  merchantmen  and  fishing  vessels, 
under  pretense  of  their  carrying  contraband  goods.  In  short,  the  histo- 
ry of  commerce  is  filled  with  similar  complaints  against  the  English, 
who  assumed,  in  those  early  days,  that  dominion  over  the  ocean,  which 
they  have  maintained  in  modern  times,  and  prescribed  laws,  at  pleasure, 
to  the  smaller,  and  to  the  less  commercial  states  on  the  Continent.  On 
this  subject,  the  learned  and  candid  Anderson  well  observes,  "  We  have 
but  too  much  reason  to  suspect,  that  the  complaints  of  weaker  states 
against  the  depredations  of  stronger  ones,  though  seldom  redressed, 
were,  at  those  times  at  least,  generally  well  founded  ;  and  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  complaints  and  claims  of  the  more  powerful  states,  against 
the  weaker  ones,  had  often  no  better  foundation  than  that  of  the  lion  in 
the  fable."— (Vol.  I,  p.  533.) 

During  the  flourishing  condition  of  the  Hanseatic  confederacy,  the 
insolence  of  power  was  often  displayed  by  the  ships  belonging  to  the 
league  ;  and  especially  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century,  when 
the  ships  of  English  merchants  were  often  seized  for  trading  to  the  Bal- 
tic, without  any  pretense  of  an  illicit  commerce,  but  merely  from  a  spirit 
of  jealousy.  These  injuries  gave  rise  to  many  complaints,  which  were 
generally  removed  by  negotiation.  Similar  instances  of  the  seizure  of 
the  ships  of  nations  in  amity,  merely  from  commercial  rivalship  and  jeal- 
ousy, and  to  prevent  a  competitor  from  enjoying  a  market  which  a  na- 
tion wished  to  monopolize,  were  frequent  in  the  infancy  of  modern  com- 
merce ;  and  the  injured  state,  in  such  cases,  remonstrated,  or  resorted 
to  reprisals  for  satisfaction. — (And.  Com.  Vol.  I,  p.  554,  &c.) 

In  the  year  1414,  a  treaty  of  truce  between  Henry  V.  of  England, 
and  the  Duke  of  Bretagne,  stipulated  that  no  prizes  taken  from  the  Eng- 
lish, by  any  power  at  war,  should  be  carried  in  and  sold  in  the  ports  be- 
longing to  the  Duke  ;  but  prizes  made  by  the  English,  were  permitted  to 
be  carried  in  and  sold  by  the  captors ;  also,  that  the  Duke's  subjects  should 
not  assist  the  enemies  of  England,  nor  afford  them  encouragement,  by 
concealing  their  ships  or  goods.     This  is  the  first  treaty  in  which  I  have 

7 


V9  RIGHTS   OP  NEUTRALS. 

found  these  stipulations,  which  are  incorporated  into  most  modem  trea- 
ties of  commerce.  And  it  is  observable  that  these  stipulations  are  all 
in  favor  of  England,  without  an  equivalent,  or  reciprocal  concessions, 
in  favor  of  the  Duke — another  proof  of  the  imperious  tone  assumed  by 
the  princes  of  that  country,  which  dictated  maritime  laws  at  pleasure. 

In  the  year  1417,  a  truce  between  Henry  V.  and  the  Duke  of  Burgun- 
dy, on  the  part  of  Flanders,  contains  further  stipulations,  viz.  "  that  so 
long  as  war  or  reprisals  shall  last  between  England  and  Genoa,  no  Flem- 
ing, nor  the  ships  of  any  other  nation,  being  in  Flanders,  shall  lade  any 
merchandise  on  Genoese  carracks,  galleys  or  ships ;  otherwise  they 
will  be  in  danger  of  forfeiture  to  King  Henry,  and  his  successors,  if 
found  in  them  any  where  out  of  the  ports  of  Flanders."  It  was  also 
stipulated  mutually,  that  prizes  taken  from  either  party,  should  not  be 
sold  in  the  ports  of  the  other,  and  that  the  goods  of  an  enemy  should 
not  be  imported  into  either  country.  So  also  the  treaty  between  the 
same  parties  in  1467. 

These  are  the  earliest  records  that  I  have  found  of  a  prohibition  to 
neutrals  or  nations  at  peace,  to  carry  the  goods  of  an  enemy.  The 
clause  above  states,  as  a  reason  for  the  prohibition,  that  goods  will  be 
"  in  danger  of  forfeiture  to  King  Henry  ;"  which  seems  to  imply  that  no 
certain  rule  or  law,  authorizing  such  forfeiture,  then  existed  ;  but  that 
the  King  would  confiscate  the  property,  if  he  chose  so  to  do.  And  it  is 
certain  that  belligerent  nations  made  a  practice  of  seizing  their  enemy's 
ships  and  all  the  goods  on  board,  without  inquiring  for  the  owners,  long 
before  this  period.  This  seems  to  have  had  its  origin  in  the  barbarous 
rights  of  war,  founded  in  violence  and  arbitrary  will,  and  like  other 
similar  rights,  sanctioned  by  compact. 

In  1421,  a  treaty  of  peace  and  alliance  between  England  and  the 
Doge  of  Genoa,  bears  marks  of  more  liberality  in  commerce  ;  for  it  was 
stipulated  that  the  merchants  of  either  contracting  party  should  not  be 
hindered  from  freely  trafficking  with  the  enemies  of  the  other ;  but  no 
assistance  by  sea  or  land  should  be  given  by  one  nation  to  the  enemies 
of  the  other.  Here  a  distinction  is  made  between  ordinary  commerce 
and  military  aid — a  distinction  that  was  not  often,  if  ever,  made  in  trea- 
ties of  an  earlier  date.  And  here  we  observe  the  beginning  of  a  relax- 
ation of  the  severe,  rigorous,  arbitrary,  and  barbarous  customs  and  prac- 
tices, in  regard  to  trade,  which  originated  in  savage  ferociousness  and 
piracy,  or  in  the  despotic  will  of  haughty,  uncivilized  princes,  who  knew 
not  the  value  of  trade,  who  considered  every  stranger  as  an  enemy,* 
and  despised  the  occupation  of  a  merchant. 

Another  striking  proof  that  all  regulations  respecting  trade  were 
originally  founded  on  conventions,  or  prescribed  by  arbitrary  will,  is 
the  practice  of  princes,  who  often  made  commercial  treaties,  and  ob- 
served them,  permitting  free  trade  with  each  other's  countries,  even 
when  they  were  at  war  with  each  other.  "  This  practice,"  says  Ra- 
pin,  "  was  infinitely  better  than  what  has  followed  since,  of  making  a 


*  Barbarians  have  usually  considered  all  strangers  as  enemies.  Hence  hosfis  in 
Latin,  which  originally  denoted  a  stranger,  became  the  appellation  of  an  enemy. 
This  idea  was  too  prevalent  in  Europe,  during  the  middle  ages,  and  was  no  small 
obstacle  to  the  progress  of  commerce. 


RIGHTS   OF   NEUTRALS.  ftl 

prey  of  the  merchants  to  their  ruin."  So  necessary  was  commerce  to 
the  belligerent  states,  that  the  rights  of  war,  and  the  resentment  of 
princes,  yielded  to  their  demands  for  goods. 

In  the  same  manner,  the  right  of  search  for  prohibited  goods  was 
derived  from  express  stipulation.  The  first  mention  of  this  right,  which 
I  have  found,  is  in  a  treaty  between  Edward  IV.  of  England,  and  the 
Duchess  of  Burgundy,  A.  D.  1478,  in  which  the  parties  yielded  to  each 
other  the  right  of  searching  for  goods  prohibited  to  he  exported  from 
their  respective  countries. 

In  a  treaty  between  Henry  VII.  of  England,  and  the  Archduke 
Philip  of  the  Netherlands,  A.  D.  1496,  the  tenth  article  stipulates, 
that  "  the  officers  in  either  country,  appointed  for  searching  for  contra- 
band goods,  shall  perform  it  civilly,  without  spoiling  them,  or  breaking 
the  chests,  barrels,  packs  or  sacks,  under  pain  of  a  month's  imprison- 
ment. And  when  the  searchers  shall  have  opened  them,  they  shall 
assist  in  the  shutting  and  mending  of  them,  &c.  Nor  shall  they  com- 
pel the  owners  to  sell  or  dispose  of  the  same  against  their  own  incli- 
nations." 

Hitherto  we  find  no  regulations  respecting  the  right  of  search  for 
enemies'  goods  on  board  of  ships  belonging  to  the  contracting  parties, 
nor  on  board  of  neutral  ships ;  nor  respecting  the  right  of  search  for 
contraband  goods  destined  for  an  enemy  of  one  of  the  parties.  The 
article  above  recited  relates  solely  to  a  search  for  goods  prohibited  to 
be  exported  or  imported,  from  or  to  the  countries  of  the  respective 
parties  in  time  of  peace  ;  and  this  was  to  be  made  by  "  officers  in  each 
country,"  appointed  for  that  purpose.  As  yet  we  hear  nothing  of  a 
right  in  the  commanders  of  ships  of  war  and  privateers  to  stop  and 
search  vessels  at  sea. 

Nor  do  we  find  any  stipulation  or  law  of  nations,  prohibiting  the 
subjects  of  any  neutral  state  whatever,  or  their  own  subjects,  to  carry 
enemy's  goods  from  an  enemy's  country  to  a  neutral  country.  The 
clauses  in  the  treaties  down  to  the  foregoing  date,  restrain  the  subjects 
of  the  contracting  parties  only,  from  importing  enemy's  goods  into  their 
respective  countries.  Not  a  syllable  do  .we  find  referring  the  obliga- 
tion of  these  restraints  to  any  law  of  nature  or  nations — much  less  au- 
thorizing an  extension  of  restraints  to  the  mere  transportation  of  goods, 
on  the  ground  of  their  being  the  growth  or  manufacture  of  an  enemy's 
country. 

In  the  splendid  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  of  England,  we  have  a  re- 
markable evidence  of  the  opinion  here  advanced,  that  the  rules  of  con- 
traband trade  never  had  any  foundation,  except  compact,  or  despotic 
power.  In  the  war  carried  on  by  England  and  Holland  against  Spain, 
during  that  queen's  reign,  the  King  of  Spain  fitted  a  large  fleet  for  the 
invasion  of  England,  which  project  was  disconcerted  by  the  fleet  under 
Sir  Francis  Drake,  in  1587.  The  Queen,  being  informed  that  immense 
preparations  were  still  making  in  Spain  to  invade  England,  (which 
issued  in  producing  the  Armada,)  published  her  proclamation,  forbid- 
ding the  Hanse  Towns  to  supply  her  enemy  Spain,  with  cor^  and  naval 
provisions,  under  pain  of  loss  of  ships  and  goods.  The  Dutch  went 
further,  and  prohibited  all  nations  to  carry  to  Spain  any  goods  or  pro- 
visions whatever.     And  in  pursuance  of  these  prohibitions,  the  English 


52  RIGHTS   OF   NEUTRALS. 

fleet  took,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Tagus,  about  sixty  Hanscatic  ships,  "  la- 
den with  wheat  and  warlike  stores,"  which  ships  had  sailed  to  the 
north  of  the  Orkneys  to  avoid  seizure.  The  cargoes  were  confiscated, 
but  the  ships  discharged.— (See  And.  Com.  Vol.  II,  229,  Vol.  IV,  23.) 

We  observe  in  this  instance,  that  powerful  nations,  when  much  exas- 
perated, or  determined  to  subdue  an  enemy,  can  convert  every  species 
of  goods  into  contraband  ;  in  short,  that  such  nations  make  laws  of 
contraband  ad  libitum. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  war  between  Holland  and  the  com- 
monwealth of  England  in  1652,  the  Dutch  persuaded  the  Danish  court 
to  seize  and  detain  in  the  Sound,  an  English  fleet  of  merchantmen, 
laden  with  naval  stores — supposing  by  this  act  to  distress  England,  their 
enemy — and  they  published  a  placard,  forbidding  all  persons  to  carry 
such  articles  to  England,  under  pain  of  confiscation.  But  the  States 
General  were  obliged,  on  the  adjustment  of  differences,  to  make  resti- 
tution for  the  damages  sustained  by  the  seizure  of  the  English  ships  by 
the  Danes. 

In  the  seventeenth  century,  provisions  continued  to  be  considered  in 
treaties  as  contraband  or  not,  according  to  the  interest  of  the  contract- 
ing parties.  In  the  treaty  between  England  and  Russia,  in  1623,  mil- 
itary stores  alone  are  prohibited  to  be  carried  to  the  enemy  ;  but  in  the 
eighth  article  of  the  treaty  between  England  and  Spain,  in  1630,  pro- 
visions are  mentioned  with  naval  and  military  stores,  as  prohibited.  In 
a  treaty  between  England  and  Denmark,  in  1639,  the  parties  stipula- 
ted not  to  supply  the  enemy  of  either  with  "  warlike  succors,  either  in 
monej/,  provisions,  arms,  ammunition,  machines,  guns,  &c." 

In  the  celebrated  leagues  between  the  States  General  of  Holland  and 
the  Hanse  Towns,  the  one  dated  in  1613,  and  the  other  in  1615,  whose 
express  object  was  to  assure  a  perfect  freedom  of  commerce  and  navi- 
gation in  the  northern  seas,  the  contracting  parties  agreed  not  to  sup- 
ply an  enemy  with  "  money,  troops,  ships,  ammunition,  arms,  provi' 
sions,  and  such  other  things,"  under  pain  of  corporeal  punishment,  to 
be  inflicted  on  the  offending  subject. — (Postleth.  Diet.,  Art.  Maritime 
Affairs.) 

From  this  detail  of  facts,  we  find  that  the  maritime  powers  of  Eu- 
rope, from  the  thirteenth  to  the  seventeenth  century,  were  governed  by 
no  fixed  principles,  much  less  by  any  supposed  law  of  nature  or  na- 
tions, in  defining  contraband  goods.  On  the  other  hand,  powers  at 
war  prohibited  by  proclamation,  or  restrained  by  seizure  and  confisca- 
tion, just  what  commodities,  bound  to  an  enemy,  they  saw  fit ;  and  in 
public  treaties,  princes  and  states  stipulated  to  withhold  from  their  ene- 
mies, and  prohibited,  whatever  articles  their  interest,  their  convenience, 
or  the  superior  power  of  one  party  dictated. 

It  is  remarkable  also,  that  the  original  signification  of  the  word  con- 
traband,  confirms  this  conclusion.  It  is  composed  of  the  two  French 
words  contre,  against,  and  ban,  an  edict  or  proclamation — it  denotes 
therefore  goods  contrary  to  proclamation,  that  is,  forbidden.  Neither 
in  the  meaning  of  the  word,  nor  in  the  history  of  contraband,  do  we 
find  the  least  ground  to  refer  its  origin  to  natural  right  or  justice. 

The  right  of  search,  another  subject  of  controversy,  seems  to  have 
been  derived  from  the  practice  of  e,\amimng  foreign  ships  in  port,  to 


EIGHTS   OF   NEITTEALS.  .A^ 

prevent  their  lading  with  commodities  prohibited  to  be  exported.  Thus 
in  early  times,  searchers  were  appointed  by  princes  in  all  their  ports, 
whose  business  was  to  inspect  the  cargoes  of  all  ships  while  loading  ; 
and  even  down  to  the  year  1668,  treaties  between  states  took  notice  of 
these  officers,  and  regulated  their  conduct  to  prevent  abuse  and  impo- 
sitions. But  anterior  to  the  year  1632,  no  regulations  were  provided 
in  treaties,  as  far  as  I  can  discover,  concerning  the  searching  of  vessels 
at  sea.*  In  the  treaty  between  England  and  France,  in  1632,  the 
third  article  provides  against  damages  to  merchants  by  detention  at  sea, 
under  pretense  of  searching  for  contraband  goods.  No  more  than  three 
persons  were  permitted  at  one  time,  to  enter  a  merchantman  from  a 
ship  of  war — and  after  search,  they  were  not  suffered  to  detain  the 
ship  nor  "  turn  it  out  of  its  way." 

The  right  of  search  seems  incident  to  the  right  of  prohibiting  the 
transportation  of  goods.  And  it  is  probable,  that  as  the  practice  of 
forbidding  foreign  nations  to  cany  goods  to  an  enemy  was  originally 
arbitrary,  and  authorized  solely  by  the  will  of  the  sovereign  who  was 
at  war,  so  the  practice  of  searching  vessels  at  sea  for  contx*aband  goods 
was  assumed  by  commanders  of  ships,  or  authorized  by  their  sov- 
ereigns, long  before  it  was  sanctioned  by  treaty.  Indeed  there  can  be 
no  rational  doubt  on  this  point,  when  it  is  considered  that  the  first  men- 
tion of  this  practice  in  treaties  is,  in  clauses  intended  to  regulate  it  and 
prevent  its  abuses.  In  most  modern  treaties,  clauses  are  inserted  for 
this  purpose ;  and  after  all  possible  precautions,  no  privilege  is  more 
liable  to  be  abused  by  the  imperious  commanders  of  ships  ;  nor  is  there 
any  abuse  more  difficult  to  be  restrained  by  previous  injunctions  or  sub- 
sequent punishment. 

Having  detailed  a  series  of  evidence,  to  prove  that  the  principles  of 
contraband  were  originally  adopted  in  an  arbitrary  manner,  and  were 
afterward  regulated  by  compact,  or  imposed  upon  weak  nations  by 
their  stronger  neighbors,  and  brought  down  the  history  of  this  subject 
to  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  when  treaties  between  com- 
mercial nations  took  nearly  their  present  form,  I  proceed  to  show  that 
the  practice  of  prohibiting  the  carrying  of  goods  to  an  enemy  in  time 
of  war,  has  never  been  universally  recognized  as  legal,  but  has  in  va- 
rious instances  been  opposed  by  maritime  nations. 

The  instance  already  related  of  the  resentment  of  the  Romans,  when 
the  Carthaginians  captured  their  vessels  bound  with  supplies  to  the 
revolted  mercenaries,  and  imprisoned  the  traders,  can  not  be  relied  on 
as  an  authority,  because  history  has  not  recorded  the  reason  of  that 
resentment — whether  it  was  solely  for  the  imprisonment  of  the  Roman 
traders,  or  for  the  seizure  of  the  ships  and  provisions.  It  may  how- 
ever be  fairly  inferred,  that  it  was  principally  the  punishment  which 
offended  the  Romans ;  for  it  is  related,  that  upon  the  release  of  the 
prisoners,  the  Romans  were  so  much  pleased,  that  they  permitted  their 
merchants  to  export  all  kinds  of  necessaries  to  Carthage,  but  "  pro- 


*  I  do  not  assert  that  no  regulations  of  a  prior  date  exist;  for  I  have  no  collection 
of  entire  treaties,  of  a  date  anterior  to  the  year  1600.  And  if  any  misstatement 
of  facts  should  occur  in  these  observations,  it  must  be  attributed  to  my  want  of 
such  a  collection. 


^ 


^ 


1^  RIGHTS   OF  NEUTRALS. 

hibited  their  carrying  any  to  the  enemy."  Indeed  no  person  can  doubt, 
in  this  case,  nor  in  the  case  of  the  prohibition  of  suppUes  to  Hannibal's 
army  while  in  Italy,  that  the  restraint  was  perfectly  reasonable,  and 
consonant  to  natural  and  social  justice. 

As  early  as  the  year  1256,  a  commercial  treaty  between  Hamburg 
and  the  Duke  of  Brabant,  stipulated  that  commerce  should  not  be  inter- 
cepted, even  in  case  of  a  war  between  the  two  sovereigns.  Many  sim- 
ilar facts  are  on  record  ;  and  though  not  directly  in  point,  they  prov© 
that  no  natural  or  social  law  inhibits  a  free  commerce  between  nations 
at  war,  or  that  its  obligations  may  be  superseded  by  the  utility  of  such 
commerce.  In  short,  the  faots  prove  that  there  is  nothing  in  a  state  of  ' 
war,  that  necessarily  rendei-s  it  useful  or  expedient  to  prohibit  a  free 
trade  ;  and  thus  so  far  weaken  the  supposed  foundation  of  the  present 
regulations  of  nations,  in  regard  to  a  trade  with  an  enemy. 

The  celebrated  fair  of  Leipsic,  which  has  been  a  chief  source  of 
its  greatness,  is  supposed  to  have  had  its  origin  in  a  similar  privilege^ 
granted  to  that  city  in  1268,  by  the  Marquis  of  Landsperg ;  permitting 
merchants  of  all  nations  to  resort  thither  for  traffick,  even  though  he 
should  be  at  war  with  their  sovereigns. 

In  the  year  1305,  Robert,  Earl  of  Flanders,  in  a  letter  to  Edward  V. 
of  England,  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  his  license  for  Robert's  sub- 
jects to  resort  and  trade  to  England,  on  condition  they  should  not  sup- 
ply his  enemies,  the  Scots,  with  arms  and  provisions.  He  tells  Edward, 
he  had  forbid  his  subjects  to  give  any  aid  to  the  Scots  in  their  war,- 
against  his  majesty.  But  he  subjoined  that,  "  as  his  country  had  ever 
been  supported  by  commerce,  and  was  therefore  free  for  all  merchants 
to  resort  to  it ;  he  therefore  could  not  and  ought  not  to  prohibit  the  said 
Scots  from  coming,  merely  for  commerce,  to  his  country,  as  usual,  with, 
merchandise,  which  he  was  bound  to  defend  from  all  oppression  and. 
wrong.  He  therefore  requests  the  King  to  make  his  license  absolute, 
and  without  restrictions."  In  1319,  the  Earl  gave  a  similar  answer  to 
King  Edward  II,  but  he  went  further,  and  declared  that  "  he  could  not 
hinder  the  Scots  from  trading  to  Flanders,  nor  his  merchants  from  trad- 
ing to  Scotland,  as  had  been  customary,  since  the  contrary  would  bring 
ruin  and  desolation  on  his  country."  The  same  answer-  did  Edward, 
receive  from  the  cl^es  of  Bruges  and  Ypres.  And  when  the  Flemish 
ships  were  seized  for  carrying  on  a  trade  to  Scotland,  the  Earl  remon-- 
strated  against  the  depredations  on  his  commerce,  as  violent  and  unjus- 
tifiable. For  thirty  years,  during  the  wars  between  England  and  Scot- 
land, mutual  complaints  and  recriminations  passed  between  the  three 
first  Edwards  and  the  Earls  of  Flanders,  and  the  Hanse  Towns ;  the 
kings  of  England  constantly  claiming  the  right  to  restrain  a  neutral 
trade  to  Scotland,  and  the  neutral  cities  and  princes  as  constantly  oppo-. 
sing  the  claim.  These  contentions  often  produced  seizures  and  repri-^ 
sals,  and  finally  ended  in  negotiation  and  treaty.  But  it  is  remarkable 
that  the  princes  and  cities  of  Flanders  and  Brabant,  expressed  their 
sense  of  the  seizures  made  by  the  English,  by  calling  them  sea  robbe- 
ries. So  far  were  the  laws  of  contraband,  at  that  time,  from  being 
considered  as  founded  on  natural  right  or  justice,  or  from  being  ac- 
knowledged as  reasonable  and  justifiable,  that  the  seizures  under  pre- 
tense of  contraband,  were  denominated  piracy,  in  the  official  commu- 


*Jfc^ 


RIGHTS   OF    NEUTRALS.  55 

nications  between  princes  on  the  subject.  And  this  is  decisive  evidence 
that  many  princes  and  states,  in  that  period,  considered  any  claim  to 
interrupt  a  neutral  trade  with  an  enemy,  as  illegal  and  invalid,  unless 
derived  from  express  stipulations  between  the  belligerent  and  the  neu- 
tral. 

In  1352,  Edward  III.  complained  to  the  republic  of  Genoa,  that  the 
Genoese  supplied  his  enemy,  the  French  king,  with  galleys,  and  ex- 
pressed  his  hopes  that  the  government  would  prevent  it  in  future.  This 
form  of  addressing  the  government  of  Genoa,  is  a  strong  evidence,  that 
Edward  himself  considered  his  claim  to  restrain  such  supplies,  as  doubt' 
ful  or  ill  founded  ;  for  a  prince  of  his  character  would  not  have  re- 
quested^ but  demanded,  what  he  was  satisfied  was  his  right. 

In  the  year  1403,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Hanse  Towns,  and 
the  cities  of  Lubec  and  Hamburg,  complained  of  seizures  made  by  the 
Gascons,  then  the  subjects  of  England,  under  pretense  of  contraband — 
another  evidence  that  the  claim  to  make  seizures  on  that  ground,  was 
opposed  as  illegal. 

In  1421,  in  a  treaty  between  England  and  Genoa,  the  privilege  of  a 
free  trade  with  the  enemy  of  either  party,  was  stipulated  without  re- 
striction. 

In  a  treaty  between  Henry  IV.  of  England  and  the  Duchess  of  Bur- 
gundy, in  1478,  the  armed  ships  of  enemies  are  denominated  pirates, 
and  prohibited  from  entering  the  ports  of  either  party.  At  least  this  is 
the  sense  in  which  Anderson  understands  the  word,  and  the  clause  war- 
rants the  construction.  Indeed,  in  a  period  when  the  prohibitions  of 
neutral  commerce  were  considered  as  illegal,  unless  authorized  by  com- 
pact, all  seizures  of  ships  in  neutral  trade,  not  warranted  by  such  com- 
pact, must  have  been  deemed  piratical ;  and  it  is  clear  from  all  history, 
that  they  were  so  considered. 

We  shall  not  be  surprised  at  this  view  of  the  subject,  if  we  consider 
that  during  the  period  under  consideration,  the  land  was  infested  with 
robberies,  and  the  ocean  with  piracies.  Nothing  was  more  common, 
than  for  the  ordinary  merchantmen  of  every  nation,  to  rob,  if  able, 
any  ship  whatever  at  sea ;  and  this  practice  gave  to  a  clause,  found  in 
most  ancient  treaties,  requiring  the  masters  or  owners  of  all  ships, 
before  their  departure,  to  give  ample  security  not  to  commit  robbery, 
violence  or  murders  on  the  high  seas.  In  a  memorable  treaty  of  peace 
and  commerce,  between  Henry  VII.  of  England,  and  John,  King  of 
Denmark,  A.  D.  1490,  the  parties  stipulate  that  "  pirates  and  others 
warring  at  sea,"  shall  not  be  received  into  the  ports  of  either  party — 
which  stipulation  evidently  distinguishes  between  robbers  at  sea,  who 
had  no  license  or  commission  whatever,  and  ships  authorized  as  traders 
or  ships  of  war,  that  might  commit  robbery  or  violence.  A  subsequent 
part  of  the  clause  includes  all  such  ships  under  the  terms  pirates  and 
sea  robbers,  and  ordains  the  same  penalties  for  aiding  and  protecting 
them,  without  distinction. 

The  contradictory  principles  pursued  by  the  same  nation,  in  different 
years,  and  under  different  situations,  confirm  the  opinions  here  advanced, 
concerning  the  origin  of  the  laws  of  contraband.  Grotius  relates  from 
Rhedanus,  the  Dutch  historian,  and  Camden,  the  British  antiquary,  that 
Queen  Elizabeth,  in   1575,  when  a  war  raged  between  Holland  and 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 


Spain,  sent  two  envoys  to  the  Dutch,  to  inform  them  that  the  English 
government  would  not  submit  to  have  their  vessels,  bound  to  Spain, 
seized  and  detained  by  the  Dutch. — (De  Jure  Belli,  lib.  3,  cap.  1,  annot.) 

Yet  within  fourteen  years  after,  when  Elizabeth  herself  was  engaged 
in  a  war  with  Spain,  she  issued  her  proclamation,  and  sent  letters  to  the 
German  cities,  actually  forbidding  them  to  send  provisions  to  Spain. 
In  this  instance,  which  is  far  from  being  a  solitary  one,  a  sovereign 
refused  to  submit  to  restrictions,  which  she  herself,  when  she  found  it 
convenient,  imposed  on  others — an  evidence  that  such  prohibitions  de- 
pended on  the  arbitrary  will  of  princes,  who  regulated  their  public 
claims  and  pretended  rights,  by  their  interest  and  their  power. 

The  haughty  conduct  of  Elizabeth,  however,  on  that  occasion,  and 
her  capture  of  the  Hanse  ships  in  the  Tagus,  as  before  related,  gave 
the  Queen  much  trouble ;  for  not  only  the  Hanse  cities,  but  the  Em- 
peror, and  the  government  of  Poland  and  Dantzic,  remonstrated  against 
the  seizures,  and  finally  an  open  rupture  ensued  between  England  and 
the  Hanseatics. 

In  the  year  1598,  mutual  complaints  passed  between  the  King  of 
Denmark  and  Queen  Elizabeth,  respecting  seizures  of  vessels.  The 
Danes  seized  English  ships,  under  pretense  that  certain  goods  had  not 
been  duly  entered  at  the  custom-house.  The  Queen  remonstrated,  and 
procured  a  remission  of  part  of  the  confiscation.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Danish  prince  demanded  redress  for  certain  "  piracies"  committed 
by  the  English  on  his  subjects  :  "  for  now,"  says  Camden,  "  there  be- 
gan to  grow  controversies  about  such  matters ;"  meaning,  the  right  of 
carrying  contraband  goods  to  an  enemy.  It  is  here  observable,  that 
the  King  of  Denmark  claimed  a  right  to  send  goods  of  any  kind  to  the 
enemy  of  England,  and  he  calls  the  seizure  and  confiscation  of  his 
subjects'  ships  by  the  English,  "  piracies,"  and  declares  he  can  endure 
them  no  longer.  This  is  no  small  proof  that  the  laws  of  contraband 
were  arbitrary,  and  did  not  command  the  assent  of  sovereigns,  as  laws 
of  natural  right  or  justice.  Camden  however  mistakes  in  saying,  "  con- 
troversies about  such  matters  then  began ;"  for  we  have  seen  the  right 
of  a  belligerent  to  prohibit  a  neutral  trade  to  an  enemy  disputed  as 
early  as  the  year  1305,  almost  three  centuries  anterior  to  the  period  un- 
der consideration. 

Grotius,  in  the  passage  above  cited,  has  compressed  into  a  small  com- 
pass, the  ordinances  and  practice  of  the  maritime  nations  of  Europe, 
in  regard  to  neutral  commerce.  When  the  ships  and  goods  belong  to 
an  enemy,  without  controversy,  both  are  the  property  of  the  captors. 
If  the  ship  is  neutral,  and  the  merchandise  the  property  of  an  enemy, 
the  captor  may  send  the  ship  into  port,  where  the  goods  may  be  unla- 
den and  seized  by  the  captor,  but  the  ship  must  be  discharged,  and  the 
owner  receive  his  freight.  If  the  ship  belongs  to  an  enemy,  and  its 
cargo  to  a  neutral,  both  are  lawful  prize.  But  in  the  war  between  the 
Dutch  and  the  Hanse  Towns  on  the  Baltic  and  Elbe,  in  1438,  the  senate  • 
of  Holland  frequently  determined  that  the  goods  of  a  friend  on  board 
the  ships  of  an  enemy,  should  not  be  lawful  prize ;  and  this  determina- 
tion was  afterward  held  by  them  to  be  law.  In  1597,  when  the  Dutch 
were  at  war  with  Spain,  the  King  of  Denmark  sent  envoys  to  Holland 
and  the  allies,  vindicating  a  right  to  a  free  trade  to  Spain,  their  enemy. 


RIGHTS   OF   NEUTRALS.  57 

The  French  almost  always  permitted  a  free  trade  to  be  carried  on  by 
neutrals  to  their  enemy  in  time  of  war ;  so  indulgent  was  the  French 
government,  that  the  enemy  often  covered  his  property  under  other 
names — which  was  attempted  to  be  prevented  by  edicts  in  1543  and 
1584. 

By  those  edicts,  the  French  government  permitted  friendly  nations  to 
carry  to  any  enemy,  every  species  of  merchandise  except  instruments 
of  war ;  and  even  when  these  were  seized,  they  were  not  confiscated, 
but  paid  for,  at  a  just  value.  Indeed  it  is  remarkable  that  the  French 
princes  were  always  liberal  in  regard  to  neutral  commerce. 

In  1613,  the  Hollanders  and  their  allies  agreed  with  the  city  of  Lu- 
bec  and  its  allies,  not  to  furnish  their  enemies  with  money,  men,  ships 
or  provisions ;  and  in  1627,  it  was  agreed  between  Denmark  and  Swe- 
den, that  the  Danes  should  hinder  all  trade  with  Dantzic,  then  the  ene- 
my of  Sweden,  and  should  not  permit  any  ships  to  pass  the  Sound  with 
goods  for  her  other  enemies.  For  these  engagements,  however,  the 
King  of  Denmark  stipulated  to  receive  a  compensation  in  other  advan- 
tages. These,  says  Grotius,  are  special  conventions,  from  which  noth- 
ing can  be  inferred  to  bind  others. 

But,  continues  our  learned  author,  the  Germans  were  not  the  only 
people  who  opposed  the  claims  of  Great  Britain  to  interrupt  all  com- 
merce with  her  enemy.  The  Polish  government  also  remonstrated 
against  the  interruption  of  their  trade  to  Spain,  when  at  war  with  Eng- 
land, in  1597. 

After  the  peace  of  Vervins  between  France  and  Spain,  in  1598,  Eliz- 
abeth, still  continuing  the  war,  requested  the  French  to  permit  their 
ships,  bound  to  Spain,  to  be  searched  for  military  apparatus ;  but  the 
French  would  not  consent,  alledging  that  the  English  only  sought  a  pre- 
text to  interrupt  their  commerce  and  plunder  their  ships.  [This  was  in 
the  reign  of  that  able  and  generous  prince,  Henry  IV.  of  France — a 
prince  who  perfectly  well  undei-stood  the  laws  of  nations,  and  the  true 
interests  of  his  country.  The  application  of  Elizabeth  to  him  for  per- 
mission to  search,  and  his  refusal  to  grant  it,  are  decisive  evidences  that 
neither  of  them  understood  the  practice  of  searching,  even  for  warlike 
stores,  to  be  a  right ;  on  the  contrary,  they  must  have  considered  it  as 
a  special  privilege,  to  be  derived  only  from  agreement,  and  a  deroga- 
tion from  the  common  right  of  nations.] 

In  1525,  a  league  was  formed  between  England  and  Holland,  and 
their  allies,  in  which  it  was  agreed  that  other  states,  which  had  an  inter- 
est in  reducing  the  enormous  power  of  Spain,  should  be  solicited  to  pro- 
hibit all  commerce  between  their  respective  countries  and  Spain  ;  but  if 
they  should  decline,  then  it  was  agreed  to  search  their  ships  for  military 
stores,  but  no  further  to  detain  the  vessels,  nor  to  injure  the  neutral,  un- 
der the  pretense  of  carrying  such  goods.  In  pursuance  of  this  treaty, 
some  Hamburg  ships  bound  to  Spain  were  taken,  laden  with  militaiy 
apparatus,  which  was  confiscated,  but  the  other  goods  were  paid  for. 
But  the  French  resisted  this  practice,  and  when  some  of  their  ships, 
bound  to  Spain,  were  taken  and  confiscated,  the  government  manifested 
its  determination  not  to  submit  to  such  violence. 

From  these  facts  our  author  concludes,  that  public  proclamation  ought 
to  be  given  by  a  nation,  of  an  intention  to  interrupt  the  trade  of  a  neu- 

8 


m 


58  EIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

tral ;  and  he  cites  examples — but  observes,  that  such  notice  is  not  al«, 
ways  regarded.  In  1458,  such  notice  was  given  by  the  city  of  Dant^.- 
zic  to  the  city  of  Lubec,  not  to  carry  on  commerce  with  her  ene- 
mies ;  but  no  regard  was  paid  to  it.  The  Hollanders  equally  disregard- 
ed a  notice  given  them  by  the  Lubeckers,  to  abstain  from  a  trade  with, 
the  Danes,  their  enemies,  in  1551.  In  a  war  between  Sweden  and  Po- 
land, the  Hollanders  utterly  refused  to  permit  the  parties  to  interrupt 
their  free  trade. 

From  these  authorities,  we  prove  beyond  controversy,  that  the  prac- 
tice of  prohibiting  neutral  nations  from  carrying  goods  of  any  kind  to 
an  enemy,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  originated  in  arbitrary  will, 
supported  hy  superior  power ;  that  no  nation,  until  a  very  moderi\ peri- 
od oT  time,  ever  claimed  the  right  thus  to  interrupt  the  trade  of  neu- 
trals, on  the  ground  of  natural  law,  or  general  law  of  nations,  sanction- 
ed by  common  consent  and  practice ;  that  the  practice  of  princes  and 
states  on  this  subject,  has  been  regulated  entirely  by  temporary  inter- 
ests, despotic  power,  and  mutual  stipulations  in  conventions — of  course 
has  been  variable  and  contradictory.  It  will  be  hereafter  proved,  that 
the  present  laws  of  contraband,  as  they  are  called,  so  far  from  being 
warranted  by  the  principles  of  natural  and  social  justice,  are  no  more 
than  the  ancient  practice  of  piracy,  modified  and  meliorated  by  a  few 
humane  regulations. 

From  this  detail  of  facts,  regarding  the  prohibitions  of  neutral  com- 
merce by  belligerent  powers,  from  the  earliest  records  of  history  to  the 
period  when  commercial  treaties  began  to  take  the  form  which  they 
have  since  retained,  I  proceed  to  state  the  most  material  facts  respecting 
the  rules  of  contraband,  as  now  understood  and  received  by  authors  and 
nations. 

The  first  treaty  I  have  found,  in  which  the  articles  deemed  contra- 
band are  severally  enumerated,  is  that  between  Charles  II.  of  England, 
and  the  States  General  of  the  Netherlands,  dated  February,  1668. 
These  articles  are  the  warlike  instruments  used  at  that  time,  and  nearly 
the  same  as  those  specified  in  more  modern  treaties.  But  it  was  ex- 
pressly stipulated  that  all  other  merchandise  should  be  free  for  one  par- 
ty at  peace  to  cany  to  the  enemy  of  the  other  party  at  war,  except  to 
places  besieged,  blocked  up,  or  invested.  And  now,  I  believe  for  the 
first  time,  these  nations  determined  to  abolish  the  ancient  custom  of  con- 
sidering provisions  as  contraband,  and  stipulated  that  "  corn,  wheat,  and 
other  grain,  pulse,  oils,  wines,  salt,  and  generally  any  thing  that  belongs 
to  the  nourishment. and  sustenance  of  life,"  should  not  be  prohibited. 
Here  we  see  the  modern  refinement  of  manners,  increasing  humanity, 
and  the  true  interest  of  commerce,  triumphing  over  the  barbarous  max- 
ims of  antiquity,  which  authorized  every  species  of  plunder,  and  all 
possible  means  to  distress  and  reduce  an  enemy.  This  period,  in  which 
the  limits  of  contraband  were  narrowed,  by  excepting  provisions  from 
the  list  of  articles,  and  in  which  precise  stipulations  were  substituted 
for  the  arbitrary  determination  of  princes  and  states,  may  be  consider- 
ed as  an  important  epoch  in  the  history  of  commerce. 

Another  considerable  change  in  the  intercourse  of  nations,  was  ef- 
fected about  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century.  This  was  an  agree- 
ment to  give  full  faith  and  credit  to  sea  letters  or  passports,  according 


w' 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  59 

to  certain  forms,  in  order  to  prevent  the  vexations  practiced  in  search- 
ing for  prohibited  goods.  The  practice  of  searching  vessels  passing  the 
Sound  into  and  from  the  Baltic,  was  expressly  abolished  by  treaty  be- 
tween Denmark  and  the  States  General  in  1645,  and  it  was  declai'ed 
that  full  faith  should  be  given  to  the  cocket,  or  custom-house  clearance. 
The  treaty  of  1668,  between  England  and  the  States  General,  declared 
also  that  entire  credit  should  be  given  to  a  ship's  passport,  the  form  of 
which  was  annexed  to  the  treaty — a  form  which  has  been  retained  in 
subsequent  treaties.  This  stipulation  was  no  inconsiderable  acquisition 
to  the  merchants,  as  it  exempted  their  ships  from  many  losses  and  vex- 
ations, incident  to  the  practice  of  detaining  and  searching  ships  at  sea. 
The  same  treaty  declared  that  neither  the  vessels  of  the  parties,  [nor 
the  free  goods  contained  in  them,]  should  be  confiscated,  on  account  of 
carrying  prohibited  goods ;  but  that  goods  laden  on  board  of  enemies' 
ships,  should  be  subject  to  confiscation. 

In  the  treaty  of  1674,  between  the  same  powers,  the  same  freedom 
of  commerce  was  stipulated,  and  nearly  the  same  articles  declared  to 
be  prohibited.  But  the  fourth  article  goes  much  further  in  the  enume- 
ration of  the  commodities  which  should  not  be  deemed  contraband. 
These  articles  are,  "all  kinds  of  cloth,  and  all  other  manufactures  wo- 
ven of  any  kind  of  wool,  flax,  silk,  cotton,  or  any  other  materials ;  all 
sorts  of  clothing  and  vestments,  together  with  the  materials  whereof 
they  use  to  be  made  ;  gold  and  silver,  as  well  coined  as  not  coined  ;  tin, 
iron,  lead,  copper  and  coals ;  also  wheat,  barley,  and  all  other  kinds  of 
corn  or  pulse  ;  tobacco,  and  all  kinds  of  spices ;  salted  and  smoked 
flesh  ;  salted  and  dried  fish,  butter  and  cheese,  beer,  oils,  wines,  sugars, 
all  sorts  of  salt,  and  in  general  all  provision  which  serves  for  the  nour- 
ishment and  sustenance  of  life  ;  likewise  all  kinds  of  cotton,  hemp,  flax, 
and  pitch  and  ropes,  sails  and  anchors ;  also  masts  and  planks,  boards 
and  beams,  of  what  sort  of  wood  soever,  and  all  other  materials  requi- 
site for  building  and  repairing  of  ships" — all  which  were  declared  to 
be  free  goods,  and  with  other  free  goods  might  be  conveyed  to  an  ene- 
my, excepting  to  places  seized,  environed,  or  invested.  Free  goods,  in 
the  same  ship  with  contraband,  were  not  to  be  infected ;  and  vessels 
carrying  contraband  goods,  were  not  to  be  detained  or  turned  out  of 
their  course,  provided  the  master  would  surrender  the  prohibited  goods 
to  the  captor.  All  the  goods  laden  on  board  of  an  enemy's  ship  by 
the  subjects  of  the  parties,  were  declared  to  be  confiscated ;  but  all 
goods,  except  contraband,  laden  on  board  of  the  ships  belonging  to  the 
subjects  of  the  parties,  were  stipulated  to  be  free,  even  though  the  goods 
belonged  to  an  enemy. 

To  prevent  all  misconstructions,  an  explanatory  declaration  was 
signed  by  the  same  parties,  on  the  30th  of  December,  1675,  in  which 
it  was  agreed  "  that  the  true  meaning  and  intention  of  the  said  articles 
is,  and  ought  to  be,  that  ships  and  vessels  belonging  to  the  subjects  of 
either  of  the  parties,  can  and  might,  from  the  time  the  said  articles 
were  concluded,  not  only  pass,  traftick  and  trade  from  a  neutral  port  or 
place,  to  a  place  in  enmity  with  the  other  party,  or  from  a  place  in  en- 
mity to  a  neutral  place  ;  but  also,  from  a  port  or  place  in  enmity,  to  a 
port  or  place  in  enmity  with  the  other  party,  whether  the  said  places 
belong  to  one  and  the  same  prince  or  state  or  to  several  princes  and 
states,  with  whom  the  other  party  is  at  war." 


^  ^   ^ 


60  EIGHTS    OF   NEUTRALS. 

In  the  treaty  concluded  between  England  and  France,  in  February, 
1677,  we  find  the  stipulations  respecting  contraband  to  be  the  same, 
and  nearly  in  the  same  words.  The  treaties  with  the  Dutch  were  re- 
newed by  James  II.  in  1685,  and  by  William  III.  in  1689.  The 
treaty  of  Nimeguen,  between  France  and  Holland  in  1678,  contained 
precisely  similar  stipulations  in  regard  to  contraband  goods,  and  neutral 
commerce. 

Notwithstanding  these  treaties  solemnly  ratified,  and  renewed  by  suc- 
cessive princes,  the  formidable  power  of  Lewis  XIV,  which  alarmed 
surrounding  nations,  and  occasioned  the  grand  alliance  with  England, 
Germany,  Spain,  and  Holland,  to  check  the  designs  of  that  ambitious 
monarch,  induced  the  King  of  England  and  the  States  General  to  form 
a  new  convention,  pro  re  nala,  dated  August  12,  1689,  in  which  it  was 
agreed  to  prohibit  the  commerce  of  all  nations  with  France,  and  to 
seize  and  confiscate  the  ships  of  any  nation  whatever,  concerned  in 
such  commerce.  This  convention  was  notified  to  the  several  courts  in 
Europe.  Aware  of  the  injustice  of  such  a  prohibition,  the  two  powers 
formed  a  secret  article,  in  which  it  was  agreed,  that  "  in  case  either 
party  shall  be  incommoded  or  molested  by  reason  of  the  execution  of 
the  present  treaty,  the  parties  do  promise  and  oblige  themselves  to  be 
guaranty  for  and  to  one  another  upon  that  account."  It  is  evident  that 
the  parties  expected  such  an  unwarrantable  exercise  of  power,  inter- 
rupting the  trade  of  all  neutral  nations,  would  be  resented  by  neutral 
princes,  and  occasion  an  attack  on  one  or  both  ;  in  which  case  the  fore- 
going clause  pledges  the  parties  to  defend  each  other.  This  illegal 
prohibition,  it  will  be  remarked,  nearly  resembles  that  of  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, already  related,  and  Sweden  and  Denmark  entered  into  a  league 
to  oppose  it  and  procure  satisfaction. — (See  Collection  of  Treaties, 
Vol.  I,  p.  6  ;  London,  1772.     Vattel,  book  iii,  ch.  7,  sec.  112.) 

The  treaty  of  Ryswick  in  1697,  which  put  an  end  to  the  war  be- 
tween France  and  England,  contains  one  clause,  in  which  the  parties 
agree  not  to  assist  with  "  ships,  ammunition,  provisions  or  money,"  any 
person  or  persons,  who  should  molest  or  disturb  each  other.  This 
clause  seems  to  be  intended  solely  to  restrain  tlie  King  of  France  from 
affording  any  assistance  to  the  Pretender. 

The  treaty  of  navigation  and  commerce  concluded  between  Great 
Britain  and  France  at  Utrecht,  March  31,  1713,  contains  such  a  full 
and  clear  explanation  of  what  were  understood  to  be  the  principles  of 
free  trade  at  that  period,  as  to  deserve  a  careful  perusal.  The  seven- 
teenth article  is,  in  substance,  as  follows  : 

It  shall  be  lawful  for  all  and  singular,  the  subjects  of  the  Queen  of 
Great  Britain  and  of  the  most  Christian  King,  to  sail  whh  their  ships, 
with  all  manner  of  liberty  and  security,  no  distinction  being  made  who 
are  the  proprietors  of  the  merchandise  laden  thereon,  from  any  port  to 
the  places  of  those  who  are  now,  or  shall  be  hereafter  at  enmity  with 
the  King  of  Great  Britain,  or  the  most  Christian  King,  &c.,  and  to  trade 
with  the  same  liberty  and  security  from  the  places,  ports  and  havens  of 
the  enemies  of  both,  or  of  either  party,  &c. — not  only  directly  from 
the  places  of  the  enemy  to  neutral  places,  but  from  one  place  belonging 
to  an  enemy,  to  another  place  belonging  to  an  enemy,  whether  they  be 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  same  prince,  or  under  several.     And  it  is 


EIGHTS    OF   NEUTRALS.  61 

now  stipulated  concerning  ships  and  goods,  that  free  ships  shall  also 
give  a  freedom  to  goods,  &c.,  and  every  thing  found  on  board  the  ships 
belonging  to  the  subjects  of  the  parties,  shall  be  deemed  free  and  ex- 
empt, though  belonging  to  the  enemies  of  either  party — contraband 
goods  always  excepted.  And  the  same  liberty  is  extended  to  persons, 
although  enemies,  and  they  are  not  to  be  taken  out  of  the  ships,  unless 
they  are  soldiers  and  in  actual  service  of  the  enemy. 

The  nineteenth  article  enumerates  the  contraband  goods,  which  are 
instruments  of  war  of  all  kinds.  The  enumerated  commodities  not 
contraband,  are  the  same,  and  the  article  in  nearly  the  same  words,  as 
the  clause  befox'e  recited  from  the  treaty  between  England  and  the 
Dutch,  in  1674.  And  it  is  remarkable  that  these  treaties  include  noth- 
ing among  instruments  of  war,  unless  actually  wrought  into  a  form 
proper  for  use  ;  and  some  part  of  naval  stores,  even  in  the  form  re- 
quired for  use,  are  excepted  from  the  list  of  contraband,  as  ropes,  ca- 
bles, sails,  pitch,  anchors,  planks,  and  masts. 

By  this  treaty  also,  full  credit  was  to  be  given  to  passports  or  sea 
letters,  made  out  according  to  a  form  annexed ;  and  merchantmen, 
exhibiting  these  passports,  were  not  to  be  searched,  molested,  or  com- 
pelled to  quit  their  intended  course,  unless  contraband  goods  were 
found.  Contraband  goods  only  wei'e  subject  to  seizure  and  confisca- 
tion, without  affecting  the  property  of  the  ship  or  innocent  goods. 
Goods  laden  on  board  of  an  enemy's  ship,  by  the  subjects  of  either 
party,  were  subjected  to  confiscation. 

The  treaty  of  navigation  and  commerce  between  Great  Britain  and 
Spain,  dated  November  28,  1713,  contains  stipulations  respecting  pro- 
hibited goods  and  neutral  commerce,  of  precisely  the  same  tenor. 

In  the  defensive  treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  Sweden,  dated 
January  21,  1720,  the  eighteenth  article  declares  that,  even  in  the  case 
where  one  party  should  be  at  war,  and  the  other  not,  but  the  neutral 
party  should  be  required  to  furnish  the  auxiliary  troops  stipulated,  till 
the  neutral  party  might  have  a  free  trade  with  the  enemy  of  the  other, 
excepting  only  in  goods  "  commonly  called  contraband,  and  declared 
to  be  such  by  the  common  consent  of  all  nations." 

The  treaty  of  Aix  la  Chapelle,  between  Great  Britain  and  France, 
dated  October,  1748,  made  no  alterations  in  regard  to  commerce ;  it 
being  merely  a  treaty  of  peace  and  friendship.  But  the  treaty  of  Paris 
between  the  same  powers,  dated  February  10,  1763,  expressly  renews, 
among  others,  the  treaty  of  commerce  signed  at  Utrecht  in  1713,  and 
confirms  it  in  the  fullest  manner. 

The  treaty  of  navigation  and  commerce  between  Great  Britain  and 
Russia,  concluded  at  Petersburg,  June  20,  1766,  places  neutral  com- 
merce on  the  same  principles  as  the  treaty  of  Utrecht — making  all 
goods  free  in  free  ships,  except  contraband  articles  ;  and  the  list  of 
these  is  much  smaller  than  in  other  treaties,  comprehending  neither 
provisions,  timber,  nor  any  kind  of  naval  stores. 

These  are  the  express  stipulations  in  the  commercial  treaties  made 
by  Great  Britain,  with  the  principal  maritime  nations,  from  the  year 
1668  to  1766,  and  which  were  in  force  till  the  year  1780,  the  time 
when  the  northern  powers  confederated  to  defend  the  rights  of  neutral 
nations  against  the  unwarrantable  claims  of  Great  Britain. 


i 


63  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

The  stipulations  in  treaties  therefore,  which  constituted  the  rules  by 
which  the  maritime  powers  of  Europe  were  bound  to  regulate  their 
conduct  toward  neutrals,  from  1668  to  1780,  may  be  comprehended  in 
the  following  summary : 

I.  A  free  trade  for  neutral  vessels  of  either  of  the  powers,  to  any 
nation  at  war  with  the  other  party,  and  an  unlimited  right  to  carry  all 
goods  not  enumerated  as  contraband ;  that  is,  free  ships  made  free 
goods.     Places  besieged,  invested,  or  blockaded,  were  excepted. 

II.  Contraband  goods  were  declared  to  be  warlike  instruments  only. 
Provisions,  clothing,  naval  stores,  and  raw  materials  of  most  kinds,  were 
declared  to  be  free. 

III.  All  merchandise,  whether  belonging  to  an  enemy  or  neutral,  if 
found  in  an  enemy's  ship,  was  confiscable ;  but  the  goods  of  an  enemy 
in  the  ships  of  a  friend,  were  free. 

IV.  Neutrals  were  permitted  to  carry  on  the  coasting  and  colonial 
trade  of  an  enemy,  without  any  restriction,  except  as  to  contraband 
goods. 

V.  The  right  of  search  was  restricted  to  cases  in  which  there  was 
clear  evidence  or  strong  suspicion  of  contraband.  Ships  were  to  be 
provided  with  passports  and  certificates  of  lading,  to  which  full  credit 
was  to  be  given,  and  if  the  certificate  gave  no  evidence  of  contraband, 
the  ship  could  not  be  detained,  molested,  or  turned  out  of  her  intended 
course.  If  contraband  goods  were  discovered,  the  hatches  could  not 
be  opened,  nor  any  chest,  bale,  or  package  broken,  until  brought  on 
shore  in  the  presence  of  the  proper  oflScers. 

Thus  stood  the  conventional  code  of  maritime  law,  in  Great  Britain, 
France,  Holland,  and  Spain,  for  more  than  one  hundred  years,  pre-  ( 
ceding  the  date  of  the  armed  neutrality.  I  presume  similar  treaties 
existed  among  the  Baltic  nations,  but  I  have  seen  none,  except  that  of 
1766,  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia,  and  an  extract  from  that  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  Sweden,  in  1720. 

It  appears  from  these  authorities,  that  the  stipulations  in  the  treaties 
recited,  were  intended  to  soften  the  rigor  of  more  ancient  and  barbarous 
customs,  and  to  limit  the  arbitrary  practice  of  princes,  in  regard  to 
neutral  commerce.  We  have  seen  that  princes  and  states,  anterior  to 
these  conventions,  usurped  the  power  of  restraining  all  commerce  with 
their  enemies.  These  conventions  restricted  the  rightful  exercise  of 
that  power  to  cases  of  prohibited  goods.  Before  the  date  of  these 
treaties,  princes  at  war  prohibited  all  goods  to  be  conveyed  to  an 
enemy.  These  conventions  restricted  the  right  of  prohibition  to  spe- 
cific articles,  which  were  the  immediate  instruments  of  war.  The 
practice  of  searching  ships,  which  was  formerly  arbitrary,  and  accom- 
panied with  every  species  of  violence  and  abuse,  was  utterly  abolished 
in  all  cases,  except  when  the  certificates  of  lading  gave  proof  or  strong 
suspicion  that  the  ship  concealed  prohibited  goods  ;  and  in  this  case, 
the  ship  was  not  to  be  searched  and  plundered  at  sea,  but  conducted 
into  port  and  unladen  before  proper  officers. 

So  far  the  genius  of  humanity,  and  the  pacific  maxims  of  commerce, 
had  triumphed  over  the  ferocious  manners  of  ancient  nations,  whose 
chief  business  was  war,  and  whose  sole  objects  were  conquest  and  plun- 
der. 


EIGHTS   OF   MEUTBALS.  ^ 

But  national  engagements  have,  in  no  period  of  the  world,  been 
strong  enough  to  bind  the  contracting  parties.  Not  among  martial  bar- 
barians alone,  do  we  find  a  licentious  spirit,  incapable  of  being  subdued 
by  the  maxims  of  social  justice,  and  the  obligations  of  compact ;  but  in 
modern  times,  and  among  nations  Christianized  and  civihzed,  we  find 
the  faith  of  the  most  solemn  conventions,  the  most  clear  and  explicit 
national  contracts,  yielding  to  a  pretended  necessity,  or  to  temporary 
public  expedience.  It  was  not  Queen  Elizabeth  alone,  who,  before  the 
rules  of  contraband  trade  were  defined  and  settled  by  treaties,  assumed 
the  power  of  inhibiting  all  neutral  commerce  to  her  enemy,  Spain ;  but 
William  III,  in  concert  with  the  Dutch,  in  1689,  under  pretext  of  a  ne- 
cessity of  reducing  the  power  of  Lewis  XIV,  ventured,  in  the  face  of  the 
principles  deliberately  recognized  in  treaties  and  solemnly  confirmed 
by  three  successive  princes,  to  interdict  all  nations  from  trading  with 
France.  Even  in  a  later  period,  in  the  war  commencing  in  1755,  the 
British  government  seized  the  Dutch  ships  carrying  the  property  of  the 
French,  in  direct  violation  of  the  principles  which  had  been  adopted  in 
1674,  and  which  had  been  explicitly  and  solemnly  recognized  by  the 
commercial  treaty  of  Utrecht,  in  1713.  What  is  equally  singular,  the 
same  government,  in  the  treaty  of  Paris  in  1763,  revived  the  commercial 
treaty  of  Utrecht,  and  thus  gave  a  new  sanction  to  the  principles  of  neu- 
tral trade,  which,  in  the  war  then  concluded,  their  government  and  their 
courts  had  violated  or  disregarded. — (See  the  several  treaties ;  also 
And.  on  Commerce,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  47.) 

The  foregoing  facts  and  principles  will  be  further  elucidated,  by  a 
history  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780,  which  forms  a  remarkable  epoch 
in  the  annals  of  commerce. 

The  British  writers,  in  their  accounts  of  this  confederacy,  ascribed 
to  it  an  attempt  "  to  dictate  a  new  code  of  maritime  laws  to  mankind, 
in  many  respects  essentially  differing  from  those,  which  had,  for  several 
hundred  years,  been  established  amongst  commercial  nations,"  and  to 
introduce  "  a  bold  innovation  on  the  commercial  law  of  nations."  They 
declare  the  system  to  tend  "  directly  to  the  destruction  of  that  sovereign- 
ty or  pre-eminence  on  the  ocean  which  had  been  so  long  claimed  and 
maintained  by  Great  Britain.''''  They  alledged  it  to  have  originated 
from  "  the  jealousy  entertained  by  the  maritime  powers  of  Europe,  of 
the  '■pre-eminence  exercised  by  Great  Britain  on  the  sea.'' " — (And.  Com. 
Vol.  V,  p.  362.) 

How  little  foundation  there  is,  for  these  charges  against  the  confede- 
rated powers,  let  the  following  facts  determine. 

In  the  war  between  Great  Britain  and  France,  from  1755  to  1763, 
the  British  cruisers  and  ships  of  war  seized  Dutch  ships,  bound  to  France 
or  carrying  French  goods,  in  contravention  of  the  treaty  of  1674,  and 
the  explanatory  article  of  1675.  I  have  not  a  particular  history  of  the 
controversy  between  Great  Britain  and  the  States  General  on  the  sub- 
ject. So  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge  from  a  short  statement  in  an  English 
author,  it  appears  that  the  British  vindicated  these  seizures,  on  the 
ground  of  a  different  construction  of  the  explanatory  article  annexed  to 
the  treaty  of  1674 ;  and  on  the  ground  of  a  secret  article  annexed  to 
the  same  treaty.  This  article  provides  that  "  neither  party  shall  give 
leave  nor  consent,  that  their  subjects  or  inhabitants  shall  give  any  aid, 


64  EIGHTS   OF   NEUTRALS. 

favor,  or  counsel,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  land  or  sea ;  nor  shall  fur- 
nish nor  permit  their  subjects  or  inhabitants  to  furnish  any  ships,  soldiers, 
seamen,  victuals,  money,  instruments  of  war,  &c.  to  the  enemies  of  ei- 
ther parly."  So  far  as  regards  the  victuals  and  money,  this  article 
contradicts  the  fourth  article  of  the  commercial  treaty  of  1674 ;  and  I 
am  not  sufficiently  versed  in  the  history  of  those  times,  to  assign  the 
reason.  Certain  it  is,  that  Great  Britain  seized  the  Dutch  ships,  in  cases 
which  the  Dutch  held  to  be  repugnant  to  the  treaty,  which  occasioned 
numerous  complaints  from  the  Dutch  government. 

When  the  war  broke  out  between  Great  Britain  and  the  American 
colonies,  the  Americans  obtained  supplies  from  St.  Eustatia,  a  neutral 
island  belonging  to  the  Dutch.  In  February,  1777,  Sir  Joseph  Yorke, 
the  English  minister  at  the  Hague,  presented  a  spirited  memorial  to  the 
States  General,  remonstrating  against  the  allowance  of  that  trade,  and 
against  the  Dutch  governor,  Mr.  Von  Graaf.  The  Dutch  government 
replied  in  friendly  terms,  and  promised  to  recall  the  governor,  which 
was  done. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  year  1778,  the  merchants  of  Amsterdam, 
Rotterdam,  and  Dordrecht,  presented  to  the  States  General  three  me- 
morials, complaining  of  the  seizures  of  their  ships  by  the  English, 
"  when  a  bare  inspection  of  their  consignments  and  other  papers,  would 
sufficiently  shew,  that  they  were  not  laden  with  any  sort  of  merchandise 
under  the  denomination  of  contraband  goods."  These  seizures  were 
alledged  to  be  in  violation  of  the  treaty  of  1674,  and  the  explanatory 
convention  of  the  following  year.  The  States  General  remonstrated 
against  this  conduct,  to  the  government  of  Great  Britain,  and  were  an- 
swered by  Sir  Joseph  Yorke,  who  declared  that  "  the  interruption  of  the 
Dutch  commerce  was  never  exercised,  but  when  the  subjects  of  that 
republic  were  carrying  warlike  and  naval  stores  to  the  enemies  of  Great 
Britain." 

It  will  be  observed  that  by  this  concession  of  the  British  minister. 
Great  Britain  had  violated  the  treaty  of  1674,  for  that  expressly  declares 
most  of  the  articles,  if  not  all,  used  in  building  and  equipping  fleets,  to 
be  free,  and  not  contraband. — (See  Art.  4,  before  recited.) 

In  July  of  the  same  year  the  French  king  issued  an  edict,  expressly 
forbidding  his  subjects  to  stop  or  seize  any  neutral  ship  bound  to  or  from 
an  enemy's  port ;  but  reserving  the  right  of  revoking  that  edict,  in  case 
any  foreign  power  should  not  agree  to  a  similar  regulation.  A  compli- 
ance was  not  expectable,  and  in  January,  1779,  the  edict  was  revoked  ; 
but  with  an  exception  in  favor  of  the  city  of  Amsterdam,  in  consequence 
of  its  "  patriotic  exertions  to  persuade  the  republic  to  procure  from  the 
court  of  London  the  security  of  a  free  commerce,  according  to  the 
rights  of  nations  and  treaties."  This  revocation  produced  a  spirited 
remonstrance  from  the  British  minister  to  the  States  General,  in  which 
he  charges  the  French  king  with  a  design  to  sow  discord  between  the 
states  of  Holland,  by  granting  exemptions  to  Amsterdam,  and  not  to 
the  other  cities.  He  assures  the  Dutch  that  the  British  king  will  main- 
tain the  "  legal  trade"  of  the  states,  but  must  prohibit  the  transportation 
of  "  naval  stores"  to  France,  and  in  particular  "  timber,"  if  escorted  by 
men  of  war.  On  the  24th  of  July  following,  the  French  king  issued 
another  ordinance,  exempting  the  whole  province  of  Holland  from  the 


EIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  65 

duties  in  his  ports,  from  which  the  former  edict  had  exempted  Amster- 
dam. 

From  this  abstract  of  facts,  it  is  evident  that  Great  Britain  was  deter- 
mined, joer /as  cut  nefas,  to  prevent  as  far  as  possible,  the  Dutch  from 
furnishing  Franco  with  supplies  of  naval  stores.  This  consideration, 
together  with  a  full  conviction  that  the  Dutch  councils  were  greatly  in- 
fluenced by  France,  then  at  war  with  Great  Britain,  in  favor  of  what 
she  called  her  rebel  colonies,  induced  the  court  of  St.  James  to  get  rid 
of  the  commercial  treaty  of  1674,  with  the  States  General.  The  free 
commerce  guarantied  by  that  treaty  had,  in  the  former  wars  of  Great 
Britain,  been  a  serious  obstacle  to  her  views  of  maritime  superiority. 
Instead  of  explaining  away  its  provisions  by  arbitrary  and  forced  con- 
structions, and  occasional  violations  of  it,  as  convenience  dictated,  the 
British  court  determined  to  suspend  its  stipulations.  For  this  purpose 
several  pretexts  were  sought.  One  was,  to  make  a  demand  upon  the 
States  General  for  the  succors  stipulated  in  the  defensive  treaties  of 
1678,  as  explained  in  that  of  1717,  to  protect  Great  Britain  from  a  pre- 
dicted invasion  from  France.  The  Dutch  did  not  comply,  and  this  weis 
held  to  be  an  infraction  of  the  treaty.  Another  charge  against  the 
Dutch  was,  their  harboring  Paul  Jones,  declared  by  the  British  govern- 
ment to  be  a  pirate,  and  demanded  as  such  of  the  States  General. 
Their  High  Mightinesses,  however,  declined  interfering ;  alledging  they 
could  not  take  upon  them  to  judge  of  the  legality  of  Paul  Jones's  con- 
duct ;  and  that  they  only  afforded  him  shelter  from  storms,  without  per- 
mitting him  to  unload  and  sell  his  prizes. 

Another  incident  accelerated  a  rupture.  The  Dutch,  to  protect  their 
trade  to  France,  had  ordered  a  convoy  for  their  ships  under  Count  By- 
land.  The  British  government,  having  notice  of  it,  ordered  Commodore 
Fielding  to  intercept  them,  under  pretense  that  the  Dutch  merchantmen 
were  laden  with  naval  stores.  On  Meeting,  the  English  commander 
requested  permission  to  search  the  ships.  The  British  writers  alledge 
that  this  was  refused — that  in  consequence,  the  British  commodore  sent 
his  boats  with  express  orders  to  search  the  fleet — these  boats  were  fired 
on  by  order  of  the  Dutch  commander — the  English  then  fired  a  shot 
ahead  of  the  Dutch  admiral,  who  returned  a  broadside.  The  English 
returned  another,  and  the  Dutch  commander  struck  his  colors. 

This  capture  produced  very  violent  complaints  on  the  part  of  the 
Dutch.  Sir  Joseph  Yorke,  by  order  of  his  court,  renewed  the  requisi- 
tions for  the  succors  stipulated  in  the  treaty  ;  to  which  the  States  Gen- 
eral replied  that  the  demand  should  be  laid  before  the  several  states, 
and  an  answer  returned  as  soon  as  the  course  of  deliberations  would 
permit.  This  answer  was  considered  by  the  British  court  as  an  eva- 
sion— and  a  manifesto,  dated  April  17,  1780,  was  immediately  pub- 
lished, declaring  that  the  British  king  considered  the  non-fulfillment  of 
engagements  on  the  part  of  the  States  General,  as  a  desertion  of  the 
alliance ;  and  therefore  his  Majesty  suspended  provisionally  and  till 
further  order,  "  all  the  particular  stipulations  respecting  the  freedom  of 
navigation  and  commerce,  in  time  of  war,  subsisting  between  the  two 
powers,  and  especially  those  contained  in  the  marine  treaty  of  1674," 
and  considered  the  States  General  from  that  time,  as  a  neutral  power 
not  privileged  by  treaty. 

9 


fHt>%'0' 


66  RIGHTS   OF   NEUTRALS. 

From  the  whole  history  of  these  transactions,  it  is  evident  that^reat 
Britain  was  determined  no  longer  to  be  fettered  by  a  compact,  binding 
her  to  permit  neutrals  to  enjoy  a  free  commerce  with  her  enemies.  The 
States  General,  in  their  memorial  to  the  King  of  Sweden,  at  the  close  of 
the  year  1780,  and  their  manifesto,  dated  in  March,  1781,  fully  excul- 
pate themselves  from  several  of  the  charges  which  the  British  court  had 
alledged  against  them.  I  shall  not  notice  any  part  of  the  charges  or 
defense,  except  what  relates  to  a  contraband  trade.  On  this  part  of 
the  subject,  the  States  General  alledge  and  maintain  that  the  republic 
had  a  right,  by  the  treaty  of  1674,  to  export  to  France  naval  stores  of 
all  kinds — that  the  stipulations  were  clear  and  unequivocal,  admitting  of 
no  doubt  or  misconstruction  ;  but  that  Dutch  vessels,  sailing  under  the 
faith  of  the  most  solemn  treaties,  and  not  laden  with  any  prohibited 
articles,  were  seized  and  detained — that  the  cabinet  of  St.  James, 
knowing  no  other  rule  than  an  assumed  right  of  temporary  convenience^ 
thought  proper  to  appropriate  the  cargoes  to  the  use  of  the  crown,  by  a 
forcible  purchase,  and  to  employ  them  in  the  King's  navy — that  the 
subjects  of  Great  Britain  had  fully  enjoyed  the  advantages  of  this  treaty, 
in  the  first  and  only  case,  wherein  it  pleased  the  court  of  London  to 
remain  neuter,  whilst  the  republic  was  engaged  in  war.  They  declared 
further,  that  the  attack  on  Count  Byland  was  an  outrageous  and  unpre- 
cedented insult  to  their  flag. 

Without  giving  full  confidence  to  the  assertions  of  the  States  General 
in  their  own  favor,  we  have  the  authority  of  the  British  documents  to 
prove,  that  the  articles  on  board  of  the  Dutch  ships  were  naval  stores, 
which,  by  the  treaty  of  1674,  were  expressly  declared  not  to  be  con- 
traband. This  fact,  in  connection  with  the  consideration,  that  it  was 
the  particular  stipulations  respecting  a  free  navigation  and  commerce^ 
in  that  treaty,  which  alone  were  suspended,  leaves  no  room  to  question 
what  has  been  before  stated,  that  Great  Britain,  feeling  her  strength  as 
a  naval  power,  and  finding  the  treaty  some  check  on  her  unlimited 
views  of  superiority,  determined  to  be  no  longer  subject  to  its  obliga- 
tions. A  free  commerce  gave  her  maritime  rivals  an  equal  advantage 
with  herself ;  and  therefore  she  resolved  that  commerce  should  not  be 
free  for  her  rivals.  She  had  some  regard  for  her  own  express  agree- 
ments ;  but  these  were  inconvenient  in  time  of  war,  and  therefore  ehe 
suspended  their  obligation^  without  the  assent  of  the  other  party  ;  and 
placing,  by  an  arbitrary  act,  the  republic  of  Holland  on  the  footing  of 
any  neutral  nation,  she  could  treat  her  rival,  according  to  the  laws  of 
nations — which,  on  this  subject,  are  just  what  a  sovereign  pleases  to 
make  them. 

After  this  recapitulation  of  facts,  we  shall  be  at  no  loss  to  find  the 
motives  of  the  northern  powers  in  confederating  to  preserve  the  freedom 
of  navigation  and  commerce.  It  was  obvious  to  those  powers,  from  the 
conduct  of  Great  Britain  in  the  war  of  1755,  and  more  especially  in  the 
war  commenced  on  account  of  the  revolution  in  America,  that  the  Brit- 
ish court,  either  by  evasions  and  forced  constructions  of  treaties,  or  by 
annulling  the  clauses  which  regulated  neutral  trade,  intended  to  enlarge 
the  sphere  of  contraband  goods,  that  they  might  be  able,  by  interrupting 
the  transportation  of  naval  stores  at  pleasure,  to  check  the  growth  of 
the  maritime  strength  of  their  enemies.     This  was  the  policy  which 


RIGHTS    OF   NEUTRALS.  6T 

dictated  the  infraction  or  suspension  of  the  old  treaties,  which  had  for 
more  than  a  century  made  the  ships  of  the  contracting  parties,  when 
neutral, /ree  bottoms.  To  effect  this  object,  pretexts  were  not  wanting ; 
and  it  is  very  probable  that  the  privileges  guarantied  to  neutral  nations 
had  been  abused.  At  the  same  time,  a  careful  examination  of  facts 
will  show,  beyond  a  doubt,  a  predetermined  and  regular  plan  in  the 
British  cabinet  of  removing  the  restraints  imposed  on  her  power  by 
commercial  treaties,  and  substituting,  in  lieu  of  special  stipulations,  the 
indefinite  obligations  of  what  is  called  "  the  general  law  of  nations." 
This  policy,  it  was  supposed,  would,  in  time  of  war,  be  much  for  the 
benefit  of  the  British  nation ;  because,  as  I  have  already  proved,  this 
"  law  of  nations,"  so  called,  is  nothing  more  than  the  various,  ai-bitrary, 
and  contradictory  practices  of  sovereigns  who  knew  no  law,  and  were 
bound  by  no  restraints ;  and  therefore  might  be  set  up  as  an  authority 
to  justify  any  prohibitions  whatever  of  neutral  commerce  with  her  ene- 
mies. Such  a  pretended  law  of  nations  would  be  more  convenient  for 
a  nation  claiming  the  "  sovereignty  of  the  ocean,"  than  the  rules  pre- 
scribed by  treaties,  which  limited  the  exercise  of  power  on  the  sea,  and 
reduced  the  aspiring  nation  to  the  level  with  its  rival  neighbor.  This 
view  of  the  policy  of  Great  Britain  will  show  the  necessity  of  some 
effectual  measures,  on  the  part  of  the  other  maritime  nations,  to  check 
the  ambition  of  a  formidable  naval  power,  and  insure  to  Europe  the 
continuance  of  that  liberal  system  of  neutral  commerce,  which  had 
been  deliberately  formed  and  repeatedly  confirmed  by  all  the  great 
commercial  nations.  To  repress  any  and  every  attempt  to  innovate  on 
that  system,  was  no  less  the  policy  than  the  duty  of  all  commercial 
states.  That  the  confederated  powers  of  the  north  were  actuated  by  such 
motives,  is  apparent  from  the  history  of  the  conduct  of  Great  Britain 
toward  neutrals,  as  well  as  from  their  own  solemn  declarations.  And 
a  bare  inspection  of  the  treaties  which  had  existed  between  Great  Brit- 
ain and  those  powers  for  a  long  time — some  of  them  for  more  than  a 
century — and  of  the  articles  of  the  convention  in  1780,  will  convince 
any  man  that  the  innovation  was  not  on  the  part  of  the  armed  neutral- 
ity, but  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain. 

The  official  declarations  of  the  confederating  powers,  which  were 
published  at  the  time,  are  sufficient  to  convince  any  impartial  man  that 
their  views  were  honorable,  and  supported  by  justice  as  well  as  a  regard 
to  their  particular  interests. 

The  Empress  of  Russia  declared,  in  vindication  of  her  conduct,  that 
"  her  subjects  were  often  molested  in  their  navigation  by  the  ships  and 
privateers  of  the  belligerent  powers ;  that  the  vexations  offered  to  the 
liberty  of  commerce  in  general,  and  to  that  of  Russia  in  particular, 
were  of  a  nature  to  excite  the  attention  of  sovereigns  and  of  all  neutral 
nations  ;  and  that  she  was  under  the  necessity  of  freeing  herself  from 
those  vexations,  by  all  means  compatible  with  her  dignity  and  the  wel- 
fare of  her  subjects ;  that  she  was  determined  to  protect  the  honor  of 
her  flag,  and  the  security  of  commerce  and  navigation." 

The  declaration  of  the  King  of  Denmark  contains,  in  addition  to  simi- 
lar sentiments,  a  number  of  excellent  general  principles,  which  ought 
to  be  recited.  It  states  that  his  majesty  had  observed  the  most  exact 
and  perfect  neutrality,  with  the  most  regular  navigation  and  the  most 


Hw 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 


inviolable  respect  to  treaties ;  but  neutral  navigation  had  been  too  often 
molested,  and  the  most  innocent  commerce  of  his  subjects  too  fre- 
quently troubled — so  that  the  King  found  himself  "  obliged  to  take 
proper  measures  to  assure  to  himself  and  allies,  the  safety  of  naviga- 
tion and  commerce,  and  the  maintenance  of  the  inseparable  rights  of 
liberty  and  independence.  If  the  duties  of  neutrality  are  sacred,  the 
law  of  nations  has  also  its  rights,  avowed  by  all  impartial  powers,  es- 
tablished by  custom  and  founded  in  equity  and  reason.  A  nation  inde- 
pendent and  neuter,  does  not  lose  by  the  wars  of  others  the  rights  which 
she  had  before  the  war,  because  peace  exists  between  her  and  all  the  bel- 
ligerent powers.  Without  receiving  or  being  obliged  to  follow  the 
laws  of  either  of  them,  she  is  alloioed  to  follow,  in  all  places,  (contra- 
band excepted,)  the  traffick  which  she  would  have  a  right  to  pursue  if 
peace  existed  loith  all  Europe  as  it  exists  with  her.  The  King  pretends 
to  nothing  beyond  what  the  neutrality  allows.  This  is  his  rule  and  that 
of  his  people  ;  and  the  King  can  not  accord  to  the  principle,  that  a  power 
at  war  has  a  right  to  interrupt  the  commerce  of  his  subjects.'''' 

The  King  of  Sweden  avowed  similar  sentiments  in  his  manifesto,  de- 
claring that  his  subjects  had  claimed  his  protection,  and  that  he  had  found 
it  necessary  to  grant  it ;  that  the  declaration  of  the  Empress  of  Russia 
was  founded  upon  such  just  principles  of  the  law  of  nations  and  sub- 
sisting treaties,  that  it  was  impossible  to  call  them  in  question  ;  that  the 
principles  were  accordant  with  the  treaty  of  1666  between  Sweden  and 
France ;  that  he  will  observe  an  exact  neutrality,  but  will  effectually 
protect  the  lawful  commerce  of  his  subjects. 

The  King  of  France  declared,  "  that  the  freedom  of  commerce  of 
neutral  ships,  restrained  only  in  a  very  few  cases,  is  the  direct  result  of 
the  law  of  nature,  the  safeguard  of  nations,  the  relief  even  of  those 
who  are  afflicted  by  the  calamities  of  war." 

The  King  of  Spain  declared,  that  the  principles  of  the  confederacy 
*'  are  founded  in  justice,  equity,  and  moderation ;  that  the  conduct  of 
the  English  navy,  both  in  the  last  and  present  war,  a  conduct  wholly 
subversive  of  the  received  rules  among  neutral  nations,  had  obliged  his 
majesty  to  follow  the  example  ;  since  the  English,  paying  no  respect  to 
a  neutral  fag,  if  laden  with  enemy''s  goods,  even  though  the  goods  are 
not  contraband,  there  could  be  no  reason  why  Spain  should  not  make 
reprisals."  He  mentions  also  that  neutral  vessels  had  furnished  them- 
selves with  double  papers,  and  used  other  artifices  to  prevent  the  cap- 
ture of  their  vessels,  which  had  occasioned  captures  and  detentions 
innumerable. 

These  declarations,  which  were  dated  in  the  first  months  of  the  year 
1780,  were  sent  to  the  several  courts  of  Europe.  Without  giving  full 
credit  to  every  assertion  of  men  pleading  their  own  cause,  we  may  at 
lesist  yield  as  much  credit  to  the  declarations  of  the  confederated  pow- 
ers, as  to  those  of  his  Britannic  majesty.  And  on  such  terms  of  con- 
struction, the  foregoing  declarations  prove,  that  Great  Britain  had  un- 
warrantably disturbed  the  free  navigation  and  trade  of  neutral  powers, 
in  direct  violation  of  subsisting  treaties. 

What  then  are  the  principles  of  free  commerce,  which  this  league 
was  intended  to  vindicate  and  maintain  ?  The  convention  signed  at 
Copenhagen,  June  28tli,  1780,  expressly  recognizes  "  a  prohibition  of 


RIGHTS   OF   NEUTRALS.  69 

contraband  trade  with  the  powers  at  war,"  and  considers  those  articles 
only  as  contraband,  which  are  declared  to  be  so  by  subsisting  treaties 
between  the  contracting  parties  and  one  or  other  of  the  belligerent  na- 
tions. After  declaring  that  their  majesties,  having  laid  down  the  gene- 
ral principles  of  natural  rights,  from  which  the  liberty  of  commerce 
and  navigation,  and  the  rights  of  neuter  nations  are  derived,  are  resolv- 
ed not  to  depend  any  longer  upon  the  arbitrary  explication  of  those 
rights,  which  is  generally  dictated  by  partial  advantages  and  momen- 
tary interests,  the  contracting  parties  agreed  to  the  following  articles  : 

1.  That  all  neutral  vessels  shall  be  permitted  to  navigate  from  port 
to  port,  and  on  the  coasts  of  the  belligerent  powers. 

2.  That  the  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  belligerent  powers 
shall  be  free  on  board  of  neutral  ships  and  vessels,  excepting  only  such 
articles  as  are  stipulated  to  be  deemed  contraband. 

3.  In  order  to  determine  what  is  to  be  considered  as  a  port  blocked 
up,  it  is  hereby  declared,  that  that  port  only  shall  be  deemed  as  such, 
into  which  no  ships  can  enter  without  being  exposed  to  an  evident  peril 
from  the  forces  that  attack  the  said  port,  and  from  the  ships  that  shall 
have  taken  a  station  near  enough  for  that  purpose. 

4.  That  neutral  vessels  shall  only  be  liable  to  be  stopped  and  seized 
for  just  and  cogent  reasons,  and  upon  the  most  convincing  proof,  that 
justice  shall  be  done  to  them  without  loss  of  time,  and  that  the  proceed- 
ings shall  always  be  uniform,  speedy,  and  according  to  the  laws ;  and 
that  whenever  any  shall  be  found  to  have  been  stopped  or  to  have  suf- 
fered any  damage  without  any  sufficient  cause,  they  shall  not  only  be 
entitled  to  a  sufficient  compensation,  but  also  to  a  complete  satisfaction 
for  the  insult  offered  to  the  flag  of  their  majesties. 

These  are  the  principles  which  the  English  call  the  "  modern  law  of 
nations'''' — "  a  new  system  of  maritime  laws''' — "  a  hold  innovation  on 
the  commercial  law  of  nations.''''  What  is  more  singular  and  equally 
disgraceful  to  my  countrymen,  these  principles  have  been  received  in 
America,  on  the  faith  of  British  writers,  considered  and  understood  as 
neio  or  modern. 

So  far  is  this  from  being  the  fact,  that  the  two  first  and  most  material 
articles,  had  been  the  law  of  most  of  the  maritime  powers,  by  express 
stipulations  in  all  their  commercial  treaties,  for  more  than  one  hundred 
years.  They  had  been  the  express  law  of  Great  Britain  from  the  year 
1668,  when  these  principles  were  incorporated  into  the  treaty  with  the 
Dutch ;  which  were  more  fully  recognized  in  the  treaty  with  the  Dutch 
in  1674,  in  that  with  France  in  1677,  and  in  substance  introduced  into 
that  with  Russia  in  1766.  The  same  principles  were  fully  expressed 
and  recognized  in  the  treaties  of  Utrecht  in  1713,  which  were  ratified 
and  confirmed  by  the  treaty  of  Paris  in  1763.  These  treaties  expressly 
declared  that  neutral  ships  should  be  free,  and  that  free  ships  should 
make  free  goods,  except  contraband  ;  and  that  they  might  go  from  one 
port  in  enmity  to  another  port  in  enmity,  whether  belonging  to  the 
same  prince  or  to  several — which  words  expressly  guaranty  the  right  of 
carrymg  on  the  coasting  trade  of  a  belligerent.  And  the  Empress  of 
Russia  expressly  founds  this  new  convention  on  "  primitive  rights  and 
laws,"  which  belligerent  nations  can  not  invalidate,  and  on  her  treaty 
with  England  in  1766. 


79  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

Instead,  therefore,  of  attempting  to  introduce  a  new  maritime  code 
of  laws,  the  northern  powers,  in  1780,  confederated  for  the  purpose  of 
restoring  and  vindicating  the  old  laws  of  trade  which  had  been  held 
obligatory  on  the  parties  for  more  than  a  hundred  years — which  had 
been  observed  with  good  faith  by  the  Baltic  nations — which  had  been 
occasionally  violated  by  the  Dutch,  French,  and  Spaniards  ;  but  which 
Great  Britain  had  not  only  infringed,  but  had  made  systematic  efforts 
to  abrogate  or  evade.  The  innovation  had  been  made  by  Great  Britain, 
by  an  attempt  to  extend  the  limits  of  contraband  ;  by  a  claim  to  inter- 
rupt all  property  belonging  to  enemies  in  ships  of  friends,  and  to  sacri- 
fice the  commerce  of  all  nations  for  the  sake  of  crippling  her  maritime 
rivals,  and  extending  her  own  naval  dominion. 

The  ninth  article  of  the  convention  of  1780,  declared,  that  the  com- 
pact was  to  last  during  the  war  then  existing  ;  and  that  the  engagements 
therein  should  form  tiie  basis  for  all  future  engagements  and  treaties, 
in  case  a  future  maritime  war  should  disturb  the  tranquillity  of  Europe. 
To  this  convention  acceded  the  northern  powers,  Russia,  Sweden,  Den- 
mark, also  Holland,  France,  Spain,  and  finally,  the  Emperor,  King  of 
Prussia,  and  the  United  States  of  America.  This  formidable  confed- 
eracy could  not  fail  to  produce  some  effect  on  the  court  of  Great  Brit- 
ain. Accordingly  we  find  that  coui't,  the  next  year,  making  a  conces- 
sion not  corresponding  with  the  tone  assumed  on  the  first  appearance 
of  the  league.  The  King  of  Denmark,  in  1781,  issued  a  declaration, 
"  that  the  Baltic,  being  an  inclosed  sea,  in  which  the  ships  of  all  na- 
tions might  and  ought  to  navigate  in  peace,  and  enjoy  all  the  advan- 
tages of  a  public  tranquillity,  his  majesty  could  not  permit  any  of  the 
ships  or  privateers  of  the  belligerent  powers  to  enter  the  said  sea,  with 
a  view  to  commit  hostilities  against  the  subjects  of  any  state  whatever." 
It  w£is  added,  that  the  two  other  northern  powers  had  adopted  and 
would  support  the  prohibition.  In  consequence  of  which,  his  Britannic 
majesty  issued  instructions,  charging  the  commanders  of  all  ships  and 
vessels,  having  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  not  to  stop  or  detain  any 
ships  or  vessels  in  the  Baltic,  for  the  purpose  of  making  prize  of  them, 
but  to  let  them  proceed  without  interruption. 

The  strength  and  decided  tone  of  the  confederated  powers,  served 
to  restrain  the  depredations  of  British  armed  ships  on  the  commerce  of 
neutral  nations ;  and  by  rendering  the  contest  with  America  hopeless, 
contributed  to  accelerate  peace  and  the  establishment  of  the  independ- 
ence of  the  United  States.  But  these  were  not  the  only  advantages. 
The  union  of  all  the  maritime  nations  (except  Portugal,  which  was  un- 
der the  immediate  influence  of  Great  Britain*)  in  defense  of  the  long 
established  principles  of  neutrality,  served  to  awaken  mankind  from 
their  delusions  on  that  subject,  provoke  a  spirit  of  inquiry  into  the  nat- 
ural right  of  independent  states,  and  the  benefits  of  a  free  trade — and 
finally,  to  establish  the  precedent  of  a  firm  resistance  to  the  designs 
of  Great  Britain,  which  threatened  to  break  down  all  the  barriers  which 
ancient  treaties  had  erected,  to  protect  the  merchant  from  arbitrary 
seizures  by  the  ships  of  belligerent  nations.     Indeed,  something  of  this 


Portugal  recognized  llie  principles  of  the  confederacy  in  February,  1783. 


EIGHTS   OF   NEUTRALS.  71 

kind  was  necessary  to  prevent  Europe  from  degenerating,  in  war,  to 
the  savage  state  of  the  year  1300 ;  for  by  insisting  on  making  prize  of 
enemy's  goods  in  friendly  ships,  as  well  as  of  the  goods  of  a  friend  in 
the  ships  of  an  enemy — by  insisting  on  the  right  to  blockade  nations, 
as  well  as  islands,  by  the  force  of  a  proclamation — by  insisting  on  a 
right  of  searching  all  ships  for  contraband  goods,  and  detaining  them 
or  turning  them  hundreds  of  leagues  out  of  their  course — by  prohibit- 
ing all  coasting  trade  on  an  enemy's  shores — by  the  assumption  and 
exercise  of  these  powers,  a  strong  naval  kingdom,  engaged  one  half  the 
time  in  war,  might  nearly  destroy  the  commerce  of  the  world.  It 
would  be  literally  a  revival  of  the  barbarous  customs  of  the  dark  ages  ; 
it  would  make  plunder  the  object  and  the  business  of  war,  and  constitute 
the  greatest  maritime  power  the  chief  pirate. 

This  important  convention,*  recognizing  and  establishing  the  free- 
dom of  navigation  and  commerce,  as  stipulated  in  former  treaties,  left 
the  right  of  search  undefined ;  stipulating  solely  that  neutral  vessels 
should  be  liable  to  be  stopped  and  seized  for  just  and  cogent  reasons 
only,  and  upon  the  most  convincing  proof  that  justice  should  be  done 
to  them  without  loss  of  time.  Nor  did  it  contain  any  prohibition  of 
searching  vessels  under  convoy.  It  however  recognized  the  principles 
relative  to  these  points,  which  had  been  agreed  to  by  Great  Britain  and 
Russia  in  the  treaty  of  1766,  and  in  the  treaties  between  Denmark  and 
Great  Britain,  and  Denmark  and  France. 

In  the  treaty  of  commerce  between  Russia  and  Denmark,  concluded 
in  October,  1782,  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  were  fully  re- 
cognized, and  the  parties  declared  their  determination  to  make  them 
the  unalterable  rule  of  their  conduct.  In  that  treaty,  it  was  agreed  that 
vessels  without  convoy  should  submit  to  be  searched,  in  the  manner 
usually  prescribed  by  treaties.  But  it  was  stipulated  that  merchant 
vessels  under  convoy  of  one  or  more  ships  of  war,  should  not  be  sub- 
jected to  search  ;  the  word  of  the  commanding  officer  being  declared 
to  be  sufficient  proof,  that  they  contained  no  prohibited  goods. 

The  same  principle,  that  "  free  ships  make  free  goods,"  is  incorpo- 
rated into  the  treaties  between  the  United  States  and  France,  Holland, 
Sweden,  and  Prussia.  And  it  is  remarkable,  that  the  very  clauses  con- 
taining the  stipulations  respecting  a  free  trade,  contraband,  the  manner 
of  search,  and  the  passports  and  certificates,  are,  in  all  these  treaties, 
almost  exact  transcripts  of  similar  clauses  and  articles  in  all  the  treaties 
between  Great  Britain,  France,  Holland,  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  Spain, 
from  the  year  1674  to  the  year  1786.  The  goods  declared  to  be  con- 
traband and  free,  are  nearly  the  same  in  all.  Some  small  modifications 
are  found  in  each,  and  especially  the  important  stipulation,  that  the 
declaration  of  the  commander  of  a  convoy,  that  the  ships  under  his 
protection  contain  no  contraband  goods,  shall  relieve  them  from  the 
vexation  of  being  searched,  is  found  in  our  treaties  with  the  States 
General,  Sweden,  and  Prussia.  In  one  particular  the  treaty  with  Prus- 
sia is  singular — it  declares  that  arms,  ammunition,  and  other  military 
stores,  in  the  neutral  vessels  of  either  party,  shall  not  be  deemed  con- 


*  See  Burchet's  Naval  History,  Preface. 


is 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 


traband.  This  is  probably  the  first  treaty  which  has,  in  modem  times, 
made  all  goods  free,  by  express  stipulation,  as  they  undoubtedly  are  by 
the  laws  of  natural  and  social  justice. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed,  that  although  Great  Britain  had  opposed 
the  armed  neutrality,  and  in  all  her  wars  violated  the  freedom  of 
neutral  commerce,  yet  in  1786,  she  formed  a  new  treaty  with  France, 
in  which  she  again  recognized  all  the  essential  principles  of  the  mari- 
time convention  of  1780.  And  in  her  definitive  treaties  with  France 
and  Spain  in  1783,  she  revived  and  confirmed  the  commercial  treaties 
of  Utrecht,  containing  the  same  principles.  The  only  circumstance  in 
the  system  of  the  armed  neutrality,  that  had  a  semblance  of  novelty, 
was  an  attempt  to  extend  the  rights  of  a  free  trade  to  other  nations,  or 
to  render  the  principles  general.  This  was  an  offer  to  guaranty  to  all 
neutrals,  that  their  natural  right  to  trade  in  any  species  of  goods  and 
to  any  place  whatever,  should  not  be  abridged  by  belligerent  nations, 
any  further  than  the  confederated  powers  had  agreed,  by  treaty,  to 
suffer  their  natural  rights  to  be  abridged. 

Such  was  the  relative  situation  of  Great  Britain  and  the  commercial 
nations  of  Europe  at  the  commencement  of  the  revolution  in  France. 
The  principle  that  "  free  ships  make  free  goods,"  had  been  adopted, 
or  revived  and  established  by  Great  Britain,  in  all  her  new  treaties,  after 
the  peace  of  1783.  The  treaty  of  1766,  with  Russia,  was  in  force  till 
1780,  and  it  is  believed  the  old  treaties  with  Sweden  and  Denmark  were 
also  in  force.  The  treaty  with  France  in  1786,  and  the  definitive 
treaty  with  Spain,  had  renewed  the  principle  in  its  utmost  extent.  I 
do  not  find  that  Great  Britain  formed  a  new  treaty  of  commerce  with 
the  States  General.  A  treaty  of  defensive  alliance  was  concluded  in 
April,  1788,  the  tenth  article  of  which  stipulates,  that  "  until  the  two 
powers  conclude  a  treaty  of  commerce  with  each  other,  the  subjects 
of  the  republic  shall  be  treated,  in  the  kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland,  as  the  most  favored  nation."  If  a  treaty  of  commerce  has 
since  been  formed,  I  have  no  knowledge  of  it.  As  the  Dutch  had  been 
the  most  active  nation  in  trade,  next  to  the  English,  and  as  they  had, 
under  the  old  treaties,  afforded  the  most  ample  supplies  to  tlie  enemies 
of  Great  Britain  in  time  of  war ;  as  in  consequence  of  this,  the  British 
court  had  manifested  a  strong  desire  and  even  determination  to  come 
to  a  rupture  with  the  States  General,  for  the  purpose  of  annulling  the 
treaties  which  stipulated  a  free  trade  to  their  enemies,  in  Dutch  ships 
when  neutral,  it  is  presumable  that  the  ministry  would  either  wholly 
decline  a  treaty  of  commerce  with  the  Dutch,  or  at  least,  any  engage* 
ments  which  should  secure  to  them  a  freedom  of  trade,  similar  to  that 
guarantied  by  the  treaty  of  1674. 

The  revolution  in  France,  as  might  have  been  expected,  interrupted 
all  the  friendly  dispositions,  which  a  free  commerce  tends  to  cherish 
between  nations.  In  the  novelty  of  the  motives  which  led  to  it,  the  ob- 
jects to  which  it  was  directed,  the  hostile  passions  it  inspired,  and  the 
sanguinary  scenes  which  it  exhibited,  it  was  an  event  whose  impor- 
tance to  the  world  could  not  be  understood,  nor  its  consequences  to  the 
commercial  and  political  state  of  Europe,  duly  estimated.  When  the 
French,  however,  manifested  a  determination  to  be  restrained,  in  the 
pursuit  of  their  fancied  republic,  by  no  laws  of  morality,  by  no  ties  of 


RIGHTS  OF  NEUTRALS.  TS 

compact,  and  by  no  principles  of  natural  and  social  justice,  it  was  easy 
to  see  that  surrounding  nations,  whose  internal  peace  was  threatened, 
and  whose  independence  was  attacked,  would  also  transgress,  in  their 
own  defense,  all  the  ordinary  rules  and  principles  by  which  nations  had 
been  accustomed  to  regulate  their  mutual  intercourse. 

The  war  which  has  accompanied  that  revolution,  was  introduced 
with  a  remarkable  proposition  made  by  the  French  court  to  Great  Bri- 
tain, for  the  abolition  of  the  practice  of  seizing  merchants'  vessels  in 
time  of  war.  The  note  presented  by  Mr.  Chauvelin  to  Lord  Grenville, 
and  dated  July  25,  1792,  which  was  anterior  to  the  death  of  the  French 
king,  proposes  "  to  make  navigation,  and  maritime  commerce,  and  the 
goods  of  individuals,  enjoy  the  same  protection  and  the  same  liberty 
which  the  law  of  nations  and  the  universal  agreement  of  European 
powers  secure  to  private  property  on  land ;  in  one  word,  to  suppress 
that  destructive  practice,  which,  on  occasion  of  quarrels  between  states 
and  princes,  interrupts  on  every  sea  the  most  necessary  communica- 
tions— renders  abortive  speculations,  on  which  depends  often  the  exis- 
tence of  nations  foreign  to  these  quarrels — which  suspends  the  pro- 
gress of  human  discoveries — which  arms  individual  against  individual, 
and  delivers  the  goods  of  the  peaceable  merchant  to  pillage.  The 
King  does  not  consider  it  in  relation  to  the  particular  interest  of  the 
French  nation.  His  majesty  knows  that  the  advantages  which  it  pre- 
sents, must  be  much  greater  for  a  people  essentially  maritime,  and 
whose  relations  of  commerce  and  colonial  possessions,  extend,  so  to 
speak,  from  one  pole  to  the  other,  than  to  a  nation  chiefly  agricultural, 
like  France.  This  is  not,  therefore,  a  combination  dictated  by  that 
rivalship  of  power,  nor  by  that  mercantile  rapacity,  which  have  so 
long  deluged  Europe  with  blood ;  it  is  a  great  measure  of  beneficence, 
of  justice,  and  humanity,  which  has  been  suggested  by  the  general  in- 
terest of  nations,  by  morality,  and  by  policy  itself,  well  understood. 
Already  in  the  treaty  of  navigation  and  commerce,  of  Sept.  26,  1786, 
France  and  Great  Britain  have  renounced  this  odious  traffick  in  every 
quarrel  which  should  be  foreign  to  them  ;  and  in  the  war  which  France 
is  forced  to  maintain  against  Austria  for  the  defense  of  her  indepen- 
dence and  her  liberty,  the  two  belligerent  powers  have  spontaneously 
resolved  to  leave  a  free  course  to  maritime  commerce.  Let  this  reso- 
lution, adopted  by  the  two  interested  powers,  become  the  basis  of  a 
new  law  among  nations,  which  will  strengthen  the  bonds  which  unite 
them,  and  diminish  their  motives  of  division  and  rupture." 

Such  is  the  substance  of  this  remarkable  proposition,  which  was 
never  published,  nor  laid  before  Parliament,  by  order  of  the  British 
ministry,  nor  was  it  ever  answered.  It  was  published  by  the  conven- 
tion of  France. — (See  State  Papers,  Vol.  I,  p.  198.) 

After  the  execution  of  the  King  of  France,  war  was  speedily  de- 
clared by  the  French  convention,  against  Great  Britain,  February  1, 
1793,  and  by  Great  Britain  against  France,  on  the  11th  of  the  same 
month.  On  this  occasion,  as  on  all  others,  orders  were  issued  to  the 
ships  of  war  and  privateers  of  Great  Britain,  to  seize  French  merchan- 
dise in  the  ships  of  neutrals.  In  pursuance  of  these  orders,  the  Amer- 
ican vessels  were  taken  and  plundered  of  French  property ;  the  Uni- 
ted States  not  having  any  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  their  vessels  were 

10 


74  RIGHTS  OF  NEUTRALS. 

treated  according  to  what  has  been  called  the  general  law  of  nations^ 
These  depredations  were  soon  represented  to  the  French  minister  in 
the  United  States,  who,  on  the  25th  of  July,  1793,  remonstrated  to  our 
administration  against  the  permission  of  such  outrages.  As  our  treaty 
with  France  had  recognized  the  principle  of  free  ships  making  free 
goods,  and  as  we  had  no  similar  stipulation  with  Great  Britain,  the 
French  were  exposed  to  a  particular  hardship  and  inequality — their 
goods  being  liable  to  seizure,  in  American  vessels,  by  the  general  law 
of  nations ;  but  their  treaty  with  the  United  States  restraining  them 
from  taking  British  goods  from  our  vessels,  while  neuter. 

Mr.  Jefferson,  then  Secretary  of  State,  in  his  reply  to  the  representa- 
tions of  Mr.  Genet,  says,  "  I  believe  it  can  not  be  doubted,  but  that  by 
the  general  law  of  nations^  the  goods  of  a  friend,  found  in  the  vessel 
of  an  enemy,  are  free,  and  the  goods  of  an  enemy,  found  in  the  ves- 
sel of  a  friend,  are  lawful  prize." — (Papers  published  by  order  of  Con* 
gress,  p.  55.) 

I  believe  the  facts  and  authorities  already  cited,  abundantly  prove 
that  there  is  not,  and  never  has  been  a  general  law  of  nations  of  this 
kind.  It  was  the  ancient  barbarous  custom  for  princes  at  war  to  seize 
all  ships  bound  to  an  enemy's  port,  and  confiscate  them,  without  regard 
to  the  character  of  the  owners.  But  this,  so  far  from  being  a  general 
law,  assented  to  by  nations  on  the  ground  of  justice  or  right,  that  the 
practice,  before  the  rules  were  settled  by  treaty,  was  always  complain- 
ed of,  usually  considered  as  piracy,  and  often  resisted  by  war  or  repri- 
sals. The  ordinances  of  the  French  king  in  1543  and  1584,  allowed 
the  captors  to  seize  only  contraband  goods,  in  friendly  ships,  and  not 
other  merchandise,  though  belonging  to  an  enemy. 

The  truth  is,  both  principles,  viz.  that  the  goods  of  an  enemy  in  the 
ships  of  a  friend  shall  be  free,  and  that  the  goods  of  a  friend  in  the 
ships  of  an  enemy  shall  be  lawful  prize,  stand  on  the  foundation  of 
special  conventions.  The  other  principle,  that  the  goods  of  an  enemy 
in  the  ships  of  a  friend,  shall  be  lawful  prize,  stands  on  the  ancient 
practice  of  barbarians,  who  seized  on  enemy's  property  as  plunder,  or 
prize,  by  the  rights  of  war — a  subject  to  be  hereafter  discussed. 

Through  the  whole  of  his  letter,  the  Secretary  of  State,  however, 
considers  this  practice  of  seizing  enemy's  goods  in  friendly  vessels,  as 
founded  on  a  general  law  of  nations,  and  of  as  much  validity  as  any 
principle  of  natural  justice.*  And  Vattel  seems  so  clear  that  the  prac- 
tice is  derived  from  the  undisputed  rights  of  war,  that  he  does  not  cite 
an  authority  in  vindication  of  it. — (Book  iii,  ch.  7,  p.  115.) 

One  passage  in  this  letter  of  the  Secretary,  (or  rather  of  the  admin- 
istration,) deserves  notice.  "  England,"  says  the  Secretary,  "  has  gen- 
erally determined  to  adhere  to  the  rigorous  principle,  (of  the  law  of 
nations,)  having  in  no  instance,  as  far  as  I  recollect,  agreed  to  the  mod- 
ification of  letting  the  property  of  the  goods  follow  that  of  the  vessel, 
except  in  the  single  one  of  her  treaty  with  France."  It  is  hardly  cred- 
ible that  such  a  blunder  should  have  escaped  from  our  executive,  con- 
sidering the  gentlemen  who  then  composed  his  council.     So  far  is  it 


*This  state  paper  lias  been  cited  by  British  writers,  to  justify  their  construction 
of  the  Inw  of  nations. — (See  Palladium,  March  27,  1801.) 


RIGHTS  OF  NEUTRALS.  76 

from  truth,  that  England  had  not  agreed  to  the  principle  of  "  letting 
the  property  of  the  goods  follow  that  of  the  vessel,"  until  her  treaty 
with  France,  which  was  concluded  in  1786,  that  she  had  expressly  stip- 
ulated the  same  principle  in  all  her  commercial  treaties  with  the  great 
maritime  nations  of  Europe,  from  the  year  1668  to  1786.  The  very 
article  in  the  treaty  with  France,  to  which  the  Secretary  alludes,  was 
an  almost  literal  copy  of  a  similar  article  in  the  commercial  treaties 
with  France  and  Spain,  concluded  at  Utrecht  in  1713,  and  the  sub- 
stance of  it  taken  from  the  treaties  with  the  States  General  in  1668  and 
1674.  A  similar  article  is  found  in  her  treaty  with  Russia.  When 
such  a  mistake  in  a  plain  historical  fact  occurs  in  the  correspondence 
of  our  government  with  a  foreign  minister,  we  are  not  to  be  surprised 
that  the  gentlemen  should  take  it  for  granted,  on  the  authority  of  Euro- 
pean writers,  that  the  practice  of  taking  enemy's  property,  wherever 
found,  is  a  law  of  nations ;  when  in  fact  it  is  no  more  than  the  ancient 
custom  of  piracy  and  plunder,  continued  with  some  modifications.* 

While  this  subject  was  in  discussion  between  our  government  and 
the  French  minister,  intelligence  was  received  of  a  more  serious  inva- 
sion of  the  rights  of  neutral  nations.  The  violent  death  of  the  French 
king,  and  the  obvious  designs  of  the  revolutionists  in  France  to  attack 
the  surrounding  nations,  either  openly  or  by  secretly  spreading  sedi- 
tious principles  among  the  people,  justly  alarmed  all  the  governments 
of  Europe.  To  check  the  progress  of  their  designs,  bold  and  extraor- 
dinary measures  were  supposed  to  be  necessary  and  justifiable.  As 
early  as  March  25th,  1793,  a  convention  was  formed  by  the  British 
and  Russian  courts,  for  mutually  assisting  each  other,  and  distressing 
France.  For  the  latter  purpose,  it  was  agreed  that  the  parties  should 
shut  all  their  ports  against  French  ships,  and  not  permit  the  exportation 
to  France  of  military  or  naval  stores,  corn,  grain,  salt  meat  or  other 
provision  ;  that  they  should  take  all  other  measures  in  their  power  to  in- 
jure the  commerce  of  France,  and  to  unite  all  their  efforts  to  prevent 
neutrals  from  giving,  on  that  occasion  of  common  concern  to  every 
civilized  state,  any  protection  whatever,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  the 
commerce  or  property  of  the  French,  on  the  sea  or  in  the  ports  of 
France.  Between  the  date  of  this  agreement  and  the  first  of  Septem- 
ber ensuing,  similar  conventions  were  concluded  by  Great  Britain,  with 
the  Emperor,  the  King  of  Prussia,  the  King  of  Sardinia,  the  King  of 
Naples,  and  the  Queen  of  Portugal. — (See  State  Papers,  Vol.  I.) 

In  pursuance  of  this  formidable  project  his  Britannic  majesty,  on  the 
eighth  of  June,  issued  instructions  to  the  commanders  of  ships  of  war 
and  privateers,  to  stop  and  detain  vessels  oi  neutral  nations,  bound  to 
France,  with  corn,  flour  or  meal,  and  send  them  into  British  ports ; 


*  The  President,  in  his  proclamation  of  neutrality,  warned  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  against  carrying  to  the  nations  at  war  any  articles  "  which  are 
deemed  contraband  by  the  modern  usage  of  nations."  And  Mr.  Pinckney,  in  a 
note  to  Lord  Grenvilie,  represented  that  "  the  sense  of  a  majority  of  the  maritime 
powers  of  Europe,  had,  within  the  last  ttcenty  years,  been  clearly  expressed  in  favor 
of  the  principle  of  free  ships  making  free  goods."  The  truth  is,  Great  Britain  had 
agreed  to  the  principle  in  most  of  her  commercial  treaties  for  one  himdred  and 
eighteen  jears;  and  for  the  last  twenty  years,  has  been  attempting  to  nullify  the 
principle. 


"•^  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

where  the  cargoes  might  be  purchased  and  the  ships  released,  after 
payment  of  freight,  or  the  masters  of  the  vessels,  on  giving  security, 
might  be  permitted  to  proceed  to  any  port  in  amity  with  Great  Britain. 
It  was  further  ordered,  that  all  vessels  attempting  to  enter  a  blockaded 
port,  should  be  seized  and  sent  in  for  condemnation,  with  their  cargoes, 
except  the  ships  of  Denmark  and  Sweden,  which  were  only  to  be  pre». 
vented  from  entering  on  the  first  attempt,  but  on  the  second  attempt 
were  to  be  seized  and  confiscated.  From  this  order  were  excepted  ves- 
sels which  had  sailed  for  the  blockaded  port,  before  the  declaration  of 
the  blockade  was  known,  unless  after  notice  of  the  blockade  they  pur- 
sued their  course  to  the  same  port. 

This  order  occasioned,  among  all  neutral  nations,  no  less  indignatioa 
than  surprise.  Mr.  Pinckney,  our  minister  at  the  court  of  St.  James;- 
remonstrated  against  it  with  great  ability  and  spirit.  Immediately  on 
receiving  a  copy  of  the  instructions,  our  government  wrote  to  Mr.  Pinck- 
ney, directing  him  to  demand  explanations  on  the  subject.  The  letter 
of  the  Secretary  of  State,  on  that  subject,  is  a  highly  valuable  perform- 
ance, both  in  regard  to  its  style,  its  arguments  and  its  eloquence.  It 
alledges  with  great  force  and  propriety,  "  that  when  two  nations  go  to 
war,  those  who  choose  to  live  in  peace,  retain  their  natural  right  to  pur- 
sue their  agriculture,  manufactures,  and  other  ordinary  vocations ;  to 
carry  the  produce  of  their  industry,  for  exchange,  to  all  nations,  belli- 
gerent or  neutral,  as  usual,  without  molestation ;  contraband  goods, 
Avhich  are  implements  of  war,  being  alone  excepted  ;  that  corn,  flour 
and  meal,  are  not  of  the  class  of  contraband,  but  articles  of  free  com*- 
merce  ;  that  the  culture  of  the  soil,  giving  employment  to  such  a  por- 
tion of  men,  can  not  be  suspended  over  the  whole  earth,  whenever  two 
nations  go  to  war ;  that  a  state  of  war,  between  Great  Britain  and 
France,  furnishes  no  legitimate  right  to  either,  to  interrupt  the  agricul- 
ture of  the  United  States,  or  the  peaceable  exchange  of  its  produce  with 
all  nations ;  that  no  ground,  acknowledged  by  the  common  reason  of 
mankind,  authorizes  this  act  now,  and  unacknowledged  ground  may  be 
taken  at  any  time  and  at  all  times  ;  that  this  practice  is  one  to  which  no 
time,  no  circumstances  prescribe  any  limits ;  it  strikes  at  the  root  of 
our  agriculture,  that  branch  of  industry  which  gives  food,  clothing  and 
comfort  to  the  great  mass  of  the  inhabitants  of  these  states  ;  that  if  any 
nation  whatever  has  a  right  to  shut  all  the  ports  of  the  earth  against  our 
produce,  except  her  own  and  those  of  her  friends,  she  may  shut  those 
also,  and  so  confine  us  within  our  own  limits.  No  nation  can  subscribe 
to  such  pretensions.  The  act  also  tends  to  draw  us  from  a  state  of  neu- 
trality, an  essential  character  of  which  is,  that  we  furnish  no  aids  to  one 
party  at  war,  which  we  are  not  willing  to  furnish  to  the  other.  If  we 
permit  com  to  be  sent  to  Great  Britain,  we  are  equally  bound  to  permit 
it  to  be  carried  to  France,"  &c. 

Within  five  days  after  the  date  of  this  letter  to  Mr.  Pinckney,  the 
British  minister,  Mr.  Hammond,  inclosed  to  the  Secretary  of  State  af 
copy  of  the  orders  of  June  8th,  with  his  remarks,  attempting  to  justify 
them.  "  It  is  laid  down  by  the  most  modern  writers,  as  the  law  of  na- 
tions," says  Mr.  Hammond,  "  that  all  provisions  are  to  be  considered  as 
contraband,  and  as  such  liable  to  confiscation,  in  the  case  where  the 
depriving  an  enemy  of  these  supplies,  is  one  of  the  means  intended  to 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  77 

be  employed  for  reducing  him  to  reasonable  terms  of  peace.  The  ac- 
tual situation  of  France  is  notoriously  such,  as  to  lead  to  the  employing 
this  mode  of  distressing  her,  by  the  joint  operations  of  the  different  pow- 
ers engaged  in  the  war."  He  even  attempted  to  make  the  government 
of  the  United  States  believe,  that  this  order  did  not  go  to  the  extent 
warrantable  by  the  law  of  nations,  as  it  prohibited  corn  and  meal  only, 
omitting  all  other  provisions,  and  not  subjecting  the  cargoes  to  confis- 
cation, but  only  to  a  forced  sale,  or  to  a  new  destination. 

Lord  Grenville,  also,  in  answer  to  the  verbal  remonstrances  made  by 
Mr.  Pinckney,  cited  Vattel  as  an  authority  in  vindicating  the  prohibi- 
tion, urging  the  prospect  of  reducing  the  French  to  terms  of  accommo- 
dation. And  what  is  remarkable,  this  flimsy  pretext  was  offered  by 
the  ministry  of  a  great  nation,  at  the  moment  that  the  price  of  the  pro- 
hibited articles  was  lower  in  France  than  in  England,  where  there 
was  no  scarcity.     A  fact  stated  by  Mr.  Pinckney  to  Lord  Grenville. 

It  is  not  to  be  concealed  that  this  order  of  the  British  court  was  a 
direct  infraction  of  the  treaties  subsisting  between  Great  Britain  and 
Sweden,  which  had  expressly  limited  contraband  goods  to  instruments 
of  war.  On  the  part  of  Russia  also  it  was  a  direct  violation  of  her 
treaties  with  several  states,  and  an  abandonment  of  the  principles  of  the 
armed  neutrality.  It  was  a  bold,  insolent  attack  on  all  the  rights  of 
neutrals,  like  the  similar  prohibitions  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  King 
William,  in  conjunction  with  the  States  General,  which  have  already 
been  mentioned.  It  is  observable  too,  that  when  authorities  are  wanted 
to  justify  such  an  imperious  and  arbitrary  contempt  of  right  and  justice, 
any  and  every  general  opinion,  however  equivocal  or  inapplicable  to 
the  case,  if  found  in  respectable  treatises  on  the  laws  of  nature  and 
nations,  is  pressed  into  the  service.  A  single  line  in  Vattel,  book  iii, 
ch.  7,  p.  1 12,  enumerating  among  contraband  goods,  "  even  provisions,  in 
certain  junctures,  when  there  are  hopes  of  reducing  the  enemy  by  fam- 
ine," has  been  tortured  into  a  justification  of  this  insulting  prohibition. 
This  authority  extends  no  further  than  to  places  invested.  It  is  impos- 
sible that  any  man  of  reading  or  sense,  can  suppose  that  the  author 
intended  to  countenance  the  practice  of  declaring  a  nation  in  a  state  of 
siege  or  blockade,  and  then  prohibiting  all  neutral  trade  with  the  coun- 
try, much  less  an  attempt  to  starve  whole  nations  into  subjection.  A 
construction  of  this  sort  would  prostrate  all  the  commercial  rights  of 
nations  at  peace.  Such  a  law  of  nations,  if  admitted,  would  subject 
all  commerce  to  the  arbitrary  will  of  every  government  on  earth.  Not 
only  Great  Britain,  but  France,  Spain,  and  even  the  smaller  states, 
might  pretend  some  cause  of  war  with  a  neighbor,  fit  out  a  few  armed 
ships,  declare  the  country  blockaded,  and  seize  and  confiscate  every 
ship  bound  to  its  ports.  The  other  nation,  in  retaliation,  would  take  the 
same  steps  ;  and  the  result  would  be,  that  the  commerce  of  all  coun- 
tries would  then  be  laid  open,  by  this  pretended  law  of  nations,  to  a 
species  of  authorized  piracy.  Indeed  the  practice  of  Great  Britain,  for 
some  years  past,  has  reduced  mankind  nearly  to  this  state  of  things ; 
for  claiming  this  monstrous  right  of  declaring  ports,  islands,  and  even 
whole  nations,  in  a  state  of  siege,  by  a  simple  proclamation,  backed  by 
half  a  dozen  ships,  she  has  proceeded  to  arrest  all  commerce  with  such 
places,  in  defiance  of  the  power,  and  in  contempt  of  the  rights  of  neu- 
tral states.  -^     m  v^ 


j* 


78  •  9.  BIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS, 

Lord  Grenville,  in  a  note  to  Mr.  Pinckney,  dated  July  31, 1793,  goes 
so  far  as  to  alledge  that  the  order  of  June  8th,  "  unavoidably  resulted 
from  that  state  of  war  in  which  the  maritime  countries  of  Europe  were 
engaged."  And  to  complete  the  enormous  injustice  of  the  measure,  he 
tells  him,  that  the  steps  adopted  by  his  government,  so  far  from  being 
infractions  of  neutral  rights,  are  more  favorable  than  the  law  of  nations 
on  that  subject,  as  established  by  the  most  modern  and  most  approved 
writers  upon  it." 

Are  we  then  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  submitting  to  surrender  the 
privileges  of  commerce  to  the  dicta  of  modern  writers  ?  Shall  the  bel- 
ligerent nations,  upon  the  authority  of  a  sentence  in  Vattel,  misunder- 
stood and  misapplied,  undertake  to  justify  a  practice  which  subjects  the 
citizens  of  a  neutral,  at  least  one  half  the  time,  to  be  plundered  of  their 
property  on  the  ocean  ?  And  are  the  smaller  nations  thus  to  be  victims 
of  the  ambition  and  tyranny  of  the  great  maritime  powers,  which  are 
embroiled,  a  great  part  of  the  time,  in  hostile  contentions  ?  Are  na- 
tions so  degraded,  so  mean,  so  humbled,  and  lost  to  all  sense  of  right 
and  justice,  as  to  consent  to  the  establishment  of  a  principle,  which 
arms  the  subjects  of  the  belligerent  against  the  peaceable  merchant, 
and  compels  ihe  most  pacific  people  to  be  robbed  with  impunity,  or  to 
resort  to  force  and  reprisals .''  Is  there  no  limit  to  be  prescribed  to  the 
inordinate  claims  of  great  naval  powers  ?  or  must  neutrals  be  always 
exposed  to  lose  the  fruits  of  their  industry,  at  the  pleasure  of  a  power- 
ful nation  at  war,  which  can  blockade  a  continent  with  a  proclamation, 
and  turn  pirate,  under  cover  of  a  paragraph  in  Vattel .''  Surely  it  is 
the  duty  as  well  as  interest  of  all  civilized  nations  to  associate,  with  a 
fixed  and  unalterable  determination  to  repel  such  practices,  and  never 
to  surrender  the  principles  of  a  free  commerce,  but  with  their  inde- 
pendence. 

The  consequences  of  the  illegal  and  despotic  restraint  on  neutral 
trade,  imposed  by  the  British  orders  of  June  8th,  were  not  limited  to 
the  loss  and  vexations  occasioned  by  British  cruisers.  The  French 
government,  by  way  of  retaliation,  speedily  issued  similar  orders  to 
their  privateers  and  ships  of  war  ;  and  neutral  vessels  laden  with  pro- 
visions, and  enemy's  goods  in  friendly  ships,  were  seized  and  conducted 
into  French  ports.  This  order,  so  far  as  regarded  the  aggressors,  was 
perfectly  just ;  but  as  it  regarded  the  American  trade  was  unjust,  in 
the  highest  degree  ;  for  in  addition  to  the  violation  of  the  general  rights 
of  a  neutral  nation,  it  was  a  direct  infraction  of  the  treaty  subsisting 
between  the  United  States  and  France.  Sensible  of  this  injustice,  or 
apprehensive  that  such  a  violent  measure  would  check  their  growing 
influence  in  this  country,  and  give  their  enemy  an  advantage,  the  ru- 
lers of  France  soon  rescinded  the  order.  But  from  the  fluctuations  of 
French  councils,  no  stable  measures  could  be  expected.  The  order 
was  again  issued  and  extended  to  American  vessels,  which  were  seized 
and  detained  by  both  belligerent  parties.  (See  Message  from  the  Pres- 
ident to  the  House  of  Representatives,  Dec.  5,  1793.) 

On  the  6th  of  November,  1793,  the  British  court  issued  a  new  order, 
for  detaining  and  conducting  into  port  for  legal  adjudication,  all  vessels 
laden  with  produce  of  any  French  colony,  or  carrying  provisions  or 
other  supplies  for  the  use  of  such  colony.     If  any  thing  could  have 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  79 

added  to  the  injustice  and  tyranny  of  the  former  order,  this  was  des- 
tined to  fill  up  the  sum  of  iniquity.  Never  was  such  a  sweep  made  of 
American  property  at  one  time.  In  a  few  weeks,  more  than  one  hun- 
di*ed  and  fifty  sail  of  shipping,  with  the  cargoes,  were  seized  and  con- 
demned in  the  West  India  islands.  The  manner  of  committing  this 
robbery  was  as  disgraceful  to  the  British  court,  as  the  act  itself  was 
illegal ;  for  the  order  was  not  published,  but  given  to  ships  of  war  and 
privateers  in  a  private  manner — contrary  to  all  the  modern  usages  of 
civilized  nations,  and  the  maxims  of  honor.  True  indeed  the  British 
court  consented,  in  the  treaty  of  the  following  year,  to  make  compen- 
sation to  the  suffering  merchants ;  and  in  a  few  instances,  the  damages 
have  been  adjudged  in  their  courts,  and  paid.  This  act  of  justice,  while 
it  admits  the  injustice  of  the  order  for  seizing  the  vessels,  has  been  but 
partially  executed,  and  no  equivalent  indemnification  has  been  made  for 
the  losses  and  vexations  of  the  merchants. 

The  extreme  and  wanton  injustice  of  the  order  of  November  6th, 
could  not  fail  to  rouse  the  indignation  of  every  neutral  nation,  and  es- 
pecially of  the  Americans.  Even  the  court  of  Great  Britain  seemed 
to  be  alarmed  at  the  effects  of  such  rapaciousness,  on  the  United  States ; 
and  on  the  8th  day  of  January,  1794,  revoked  the  order,  and  issued 
new  instructions  to  their  armed  ships,  which  were  a  relaxation  of  the 
rigor  of  their  former  order,  in  regard  to  America.  By  the  new  orders, 
vessels  laden  with  the  produce  of  the  French  islands,  bound  directly  to 
any  port  in  Europe,  were  still  liable  to  seizure,  as  were  those  whose 
cargoes  belonged  to  French  citizens.  But  vessels,  with  the  produce  of 
those  islands,  not  owned  by  French  citizens,  and  bound  to  the  United 
States,  were  not  included  in  the  orders.  Vessels  attempting  to  enter 
any  blockaded  port  in  the  French  islands,  were  also  made  seizable,  ac- 
cording to  the  tenor  of  the  instructions  of  the  8th  of  June  preceding. 

This  order  was  less  unfavorable  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States ; 
but  the  exemption  of  vessels  bound  to  the  United  States  and  owned  by 
our  citizens,  was  no  more  than  a  particular  exception  from  an  outra- 
geous and  arbitrary  violation  of  the  rights  of  neutrals — a  violation  not 
authorized  by  even  the  practice  of  ancient  kings.  Neither  law,  treaty, 
nor  usage,  can  be  cited  to  apologize  for  seizing  and  confiscating  goods, 
on  the  sole  ground  of  their  being  the  growth  or  manufacture  of  an  ene- 
my's country.  Such  a  practice  is  not  warranted  even  by  the  flimsy 
plea  of  reducing  an  enemy  by  distressing  his  commerce ;  for  it  is  neu- 
tral merchants,  and  not  the  subjects  of  the  enemy,  who  are  distressed. 

These  unwarrantable  steps  of  the  British  court,  excited  keen  resent- 
ments in  the  United  States,  and  the  clamor  for  retaliation  was  so  vio- 
lent, as  to  call  forth  a  proposition  in  Congress  for  sequestering  British 
property  in  the  United  States.  This  measure  was  superseded  by  the 
appointment  of  an  envoy  for  the  purpose  of  negotiating  a  commercial 
treaty  with  Great  Britain. 

The  treaty  which  was  the  result  of  this  mission,  and  was  concluded 
on  the  19th  of  November,  1794,  was  in  many  respects  valuable  to  the 
United  States.  It  provided  for  a  settlement  of  the  eastern  boundary  of 
the  United  States,  which  was  a  desirable  object.  It  provided  for  an 
adjustment  of  the  differences  which  had  long  subsisted  between  the  two 
countries,  in  regard  to  the  recovery  of  many  old  debts  "due  from  Ameri- 


80  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

can  citizens  to  British  merchants,  and  for  a  surrender  to  the  United 
States  of  the  western  military  posts,  which  had  been  held  as  a  kind  of 
security  for  those  debts.  These  were  great  and  interesting  objects  to 
both  parties.  No  less  important  was  the  effect  of  this  negotiation  in 
suspending  the  violent  proceedings  of  the  American  legislature,  which 
menaced  speedy  hostilities,  and  thus  securing  to  this  country  the  bene- 
fits of  the  continuation  of  peace. 

With  regard  to  its  effects  on  commerce,  I  shall  give  no  opinion,  ex- 
cept on  the  article  respecting  contraband  goods,  and  in  abandoning  the 
principle  that  free  ships  make  free  goods.  In  these  particulars,  the  trea- 
ty is  extremely  exceptionable.  To  the  usual  list  of  prohibited  goods, 
it  adds  "  timber  for  ship-building,  tar,  rosin,  copper  in  sheets,  sails,  hemp 
and  cordage,  and  generally  whatever  may  serve  directly  to  the  equip- 
ment of  vessels — unwrought  iron  and  fir  planks  only  excepted." — 
(Art.  18.) 

On  what  principle  these  articles  were  admitted  into  the  list  of  contra- 
band, it  is  difficult  to  determine,  unless  to  verify  a  clause  in  Vattel, 
which  enumerates  "  naval  stores  and  timber,"  together  with  "  provis- 
ions," among  goods  which  may  be  deemed  contraband,  "  when  there 
are  hopes  of  reducing  the  enemy  by  famine."  Surely  some  better  au- 
thority, than  an  indefinite  clause  in  a  writer  on  general  law,  is  necessa- 
ry to  justify  a  concession  so  novel,  and  so  extremely  prejudicial  to  the 
commerce  of  all  neutrals,  but  especially  to  the  United  States,  in  one  of 
which  tar  is  a  staple  commodity,  and  in  many  of  which  ship  timber  is 
a  material  article  of  export. 

In  looking  into  the  commercial  treaties  between  Great  Britain  and 
other  powers,  we  shall  find  that  ship-timber,  pitch,  turpentine,  sails, 
hemp,  and  other  naval  stores,  are  either  not  enumerated,  or  expressly 
excepted  from  the  list,  from  the  year  1674  to  1780.  They  are  express- 
ly excepted  from  the  list  in  the  treaty  with  the  States  General  in  1674, 
which  was  ratified  by  three  successive  princes— expressly  excepted  in 
the  treaty  with  France,  signed  at  Utrecht  in  1713 — and  not  enumerated 
in  the  treaty  of  the  same  year  with  Spain,  and  of  course  excepted — 
not  enumerated  in  the  treaty  with  Russia  in  1766,  but  excepted  by  a 
general  clause — expressly  excepted  in  the  treaty  with  France  in  1786 — 
and  by  the  definitive  treaties  in  1783,  the  commercial  treaties  of  Utrecht, 
with  France  and  Spain,  were  revived,  and  with  them  all  the  stipulations 
of  Great  Britain  respecting  contraband  goods.  I  have  not  copies  of  all 
the  commercial  treaties  of  Great  Britain  with  the  smaller  states ;  but 
according  to  my  inquiries,  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  in  1794,  is  the  first  in  which  naval  stores  are  stipulated 
to  be  prohibited,  since  the  year  1674,  except  in  an  explanatory  conven- 
tion with  Denmark  in  1780.* 

No  man  can  be  ignorant  of  the  motive  of  the  British  court,  for  press- 
ing these  articles  into  the  list  of  contraband.  Strong  circumstances, 
existing  at  the  time,  had  no  small  influence  ;  but  it  is  obvious  that  the 
insertion  of  such  goods  in  the  list,  as  well  as  the  leaving  enemy's  prop- 

*  The  only  treaty,  I  believe,  in  which  any  of  the  maritime  nations  have  admit- 
ted naval  stores  to  be  contraband,  within  a  century,  is  that  between  France  and 
Denmark  in  1742. 


RIGHTS   OP   NEUTRALS.  81 

erty  liable  to  seizure  in  neutral  ships,  is  part  of  a  settled  plan  in  that 
cabinet,  for  breaking  down  the  barriers  which  nations  had  been  erect- 
ing for  more  than  a  century,  to  restrain  the  arbitrary  practice  of  belli- 
gerent powers  in  seizing  and  confiscating  merchandise  bound  to  their 
enemies — to  mitigate  the  calamities  of  war,  by  limiting  the  number  of 
confiscable  goods — and  finally,  to  secure  to  pacific  nations  some  definite 
rights,  and  the  privilege  of  pursuing  the  occupations  necessary  for  their 
subsistence  and  welfare,  without  being  a  prey  to  the  rapaciousness  of 
every  belligerent  prince.  For  the  honor  of  my  country,  and  the  essen- 
tial interests  of  her  commerce,  I  regret  that  the  administration,  in  the 
very  commencement  of  the  national  government,  has  consented  to  aban- 
don ground,  which  the  nations  of  Europe  had,  for  more  than  a  century, 
been  struggling  to  obtain  and  to  fortify.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  declar- 
ing, that  no  considerations  of  public  danger  can  justify  a  commercial 
nation,  in  consenting  to  enlarge  the  field  of  contraband  ;  nor  can  there 
be  an  apology  for  the  renewal  of  the  clause  in  the  compact,  by  which 
our  true  interests  and  essential  rights  have  been  surrendered.* 

From  the  conclusion  of  the  British  treaty  to  the  year  1796,  the  com- 
merce of  the  United  States  continued  to  be  vexed  by  the  belligerent  na- 
tions, under  various  pretexts  and  various  orders.  The  clause  in  that 
treaty,  which  admits  that  cases  may  exist  in  which  provisions  are  law- 
fully prohibited,  subjected  the  trade  of  the  United  States  to  great  em- 
barrassments and  losses.  And  sorry  I  am  to  see  it  admitted  in  so  many 
words,  that  provisions  may  become  contraband,  in  some  cases,  "  by  the 
existing  laws  of  nations."  This  is  not  a  fact,  in  any  case,  except  of  a 
place  besieged  or  blockaded.  In  no  other  case  have  modern  nations 
agreed  to  consider  provisions  as  prohibited  ;  and  the  practice  of  forbid- 
ding such  articles  to  be  conveyed  to  an  eneniiy,  has  been  already  proved 
to  have  no  better  authority  than  the  piratical  customs  of  ancient  barba- 
rians, or  the  arbitrary  will  of  powerful  princes,  who  adopted  and  enfor- 
ced the  principle,  in  defiance  of  the  complaints,  remonstrances,  and 
feeble  reprisals  of  the  smaller  states. 

The  French  government,  which,  by  embargoes  and  seizures,  had  ha- 
rassed our  trade  from  the  year  1794,  resorted  in  1797  to  a  new  pretext, 
and  on  the  2d  of  March  passed  a  decree  that  every  American  vessel, 
not  furnished  with  a  role  dPequipage,  that  is,  with  a  list  of  her  crew  and 
passengers,  with  their  names,  places  of  birth  and  residence,  or  having 
a  captain,  supercargo,  and  one  third  of  her  crew  English  subjects,  should 
be  liable  to  capture  and  condemnation,  as  good  prizes.  The  reason  as- 
signed for  this  order  was,  that  many  British  vessels  sailed  under  Ame- 
rican colors,  and  many  American  vessels  were  navigated  by  British  sea- 
men, by  which  means  the  property  of  their  enemy  was  covered  under 
a  neutral  flag.  Under  this  decree,  a  vast  amount  of  American  proper- 
ty was  seized  and  illegally  confiscated. 


*  The  writer  was  one  among  many  of  the  friends  of  the  treaty,  who  supposed, 
at  the  time,  that  the  extension  of  the  list  of  contraband  was  authorized  by  the  gen- 
eral law  of  nations.  Further  investigation  has  satisfied  him  of  his  mistake,  and 
of  the  extreme  danger  of  trusting  to  the  opinions  of  modern  elementary  writers, 
without  a  careful  inspection  of  original  authors  and  documents. 

11 


VX  EIGHTS    OF    NEUTBALS. 

To  obtain  correct  ideas  of  the  claims  of  the  French  government,  to , 
have  American  vessels  furnished  with  this  list  of  their  crews  and  pas- 
sengers, we  must  trace  the  history  of  passports  and  certificates. 

It  appears  from  the  history  of  commerce,  that  when  the  rights  of  neu- 
trality were  neither  understood  nor  respected,  and  when  princes  arbitra- 
rily seized  and  confiscated  all  vessels  bound  to  an  enemy's  port,  that  the 
seamen  and  passengers  were  considered  as  prisoners,  or  inhumanly  abu- 
sed. It  must  be  further  considered,  that  it  w£is  common  for  merchant- 
men to  commit  piracy  on  the  high  seas,  plundering  any  vessels  they 
could  seize,  and  insulting  the  crews.  Without  a  regard  to  this  state  of 
commerce,  prior  to  the  seventeenth  century,  our  modern  treaties  can  not 
be  understood.  It  was  these  piratical  and  barbarous  customs,  then  very 
common,  not  to  say  general  in  Europe,  which  gave  origin  to  all  the 
stipulations  in  modern  treaties,  respecting  the  good  conduct  of  the  mas- 
ters and  seamen,  in  the  service  or  trade  of  the  contracting  parties.  The 
stipulation  that  on  a  rupture  between  nations,  the  merchants  should  have 
some  months  to  dispose  of  their  effects,  before  they  were  compelled  to 
quit  the  enemy's  country,  and  that  within  that  time  they  should  not  be 
liable  to  seizure,  was  occasioned  by  the  ancient  practice  of  seizing  the 
persons  and  property  of  merchants,  who  were  subjects  of  an  enemy, 
as  soon  as  war  was  proclaimed. 

The  stipulation  that  the  subjects  of  the  parties  should  not  commit  any 
hostility  or  piracy  against  each  other,  and  the  securities  required  of  the 
masters  of  armed  ships,  were  intended  to  restrain  the  savage  practices 
of  the  ships  of  all  nations  on  the  ocean.  These,  and  various  other 
stipulations  still  found  in  modern  treaties,  are  so  many  abridgments  of 
the  almost  unrestrained  license  of  treating  alien  merchants  as  enemies, 
and  of  robbing  their  ships  at  sea. 

Among  other  vexations  experienced  by  vessels  at  sea,  was  the  prac- 
tice of  searching  for  prohibited  merchandise  in  peace  as  well  as  war  ; 
and  in  war,  the  searching  for  anbjects  of  the  enemy.  The  first  regu- 
lation to  lessen  this  evil,  was  to  have  searchers  appointed  by  authority, 
and  resident  in  the  ports  from  which  vessels  departed,  who  were  to 
examine  the  cargoes  at  the  place  of  shipment,  to  prevent  the  exporta- 
tion of  prohibited  goods  ;  and  it  was  agreed  in  treaties  that  vessels  in 
a  foreign  port,  after  being  thus  searched  and  taking  a  proper  certificate, 
should  not  be  liable  to  be  stopped  or  examined  in  their  voyage.  The 
passport  and  certificate  of  lading,  were  originally  intended  to  give  to 
commanders  of  armed  ships  at  sea,  or  to  officers  in  a  foreign  port,  a 
just  account  of  all  the  articles  of  the  cargo,  and  of  the  persons  on 
board,  whether  seamen  or  passengers,  to  prevent  the  trouble  of  search 
and  its  attending  vexations  and  abuses.  The  form  of  the  passport  now 
used  is  subjoined  to  the  treaty  between  England  and  the  States  General, 
dated  February  17,  1668,  and  without  material  alteration,  has  been  used 
by  all  the  maritime  nations  to  this  day. 

It  is  one  of  the  meliorations  of  the  ancient  custom  of  seizing  and 
maltreating  persons  found  on  board  of  ships,  that  by  modern  treaties, 
no  person,  not  even  an  enemy,  shall  be  taken  out  of  a  neutral  ship  by 
the  armed  vessels  of  a  belligerent  nation,  except  he  is  a  soldier  in  ac- 
tual  service  of  the  enemy.  This  is  an  express  stipulation  in  the  twenty 
third  article  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  France.     To 


BIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  83 

render  this  article  effectual,  it  is  necessary,  in  time  of  war,  that  vessels 
of  the  neutral  nation  shall  be  furnished  with  such  documents,  as  will 
enable  the  commanders  of  armed  ships  of  the  nation  at  war,  to  deter- 
mine whether  officers  and  crews  of  the  neutral  ship  are,  bona  Jide,  the 
subjects  of  the  neutral  nation  whose  flag  she  bears,  and  whether  there 
are  on  board  any  soldiers  in  the  service  of  the  enemy,  who  are  liable 
to  be  seized  as  prisoners. 

The  passport,  being  annexed  to  the  treaty  by  stipulation,  necessarily 
becomes  a  part  of  it,  and  of  equal  validity.  The  form  annexed  to  the 
treaty  of  1778,  with  France,  as  it  stands  in  our  passports  by  order  of 
government,  is  as  follows : — 

"  To  all  who  shall  see  these  presents,  greeting  : 

"  Be  it  known  that  leave  and  permission  have  been  granted  to  A.  B. 

master  or  commander  of  the  ship  called ,  of  the  town  of ,  of 

the  burden  of  —  tuns,  now  lying  in  the  port  of ,  and  bound  for 

,  laden  with ,  after  that  his  ship  has  been  visited,  and  before 

his  departure,  he  shall  make  oath  (or  shall  have  made  oath)  before  the 
proper  officers,  authorized  for  that  purpose,  that  the  said  ship  belongs 
to  one  or  more  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  of  America,  the 
act.  of  which  shall  be  put.  at  the  end  of  these  presents — and  also  that  he 
will  keep  and  cause  to  be  observed  by  his  crew,  the  maritime  ordinan- 
ces and  regulations — and  he  shall  enter  (or  deposit)  a  list,  signed  and 
attested  by  witnesses,  containing  the  names  and  surnames,  the  places 
of  birth  and  residence,  of  the  persons  composing  the  crew  of  the  ship, 
and  of  all  who  shall  embark  on  board,  whom  he  shall  not  receive  on 
board,  without  the  knowledge  and  permission  of  the  officers  authorized 
for  the  purpose — and  in  every  port  where  he  shall  enter  with  his  ship, 
he  shall  show  the  present  permission  to  the  proper  officers,  and  shall 
make  to  them  a  true  report  of  all  that  passed  during  the  voyage,  and 
he  shall  carry  the  colors,  arms,  and  ensigns  of  the  United  States  during 
his  said  voyage." 

[Attested  by  the  collector  of  the  port.] 

Under  this  form,  in  the  passports  furnished  by  our  government,  is  the 
certificate  or  attestation  of  the  collector  of  the  port,  who  declares,  that 
the  master  of  the  ship  has  appeared  before  him  and  sworn  that  the  ship 
is  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  that  no  subject  or  citizen  of  the 
powers  at  war  has  any  part  or  interest  in  the  same,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly.* 

To  understand  this  form,  it  is  necessary  to  observe  that  it  was  ori- 
ginally intended  to  be  a  permission  from  the  Lord  High  Admiral  of 
England,  or  of  France,  (fee. — the  officer  who  had  the  supreme  jurisdic- 
tion in  marine  affairs.  In  the  old  forms,  annexed  to  the  treaties  of 
1668,  1674,  and  1713,  it  is  so  expressed,  "  We,  Lord  High  Admiral 
of" — "Lewis,  Count  of  Thoulouse,  Admiral  of  France."  The  license 
or  permission  therefore  is  given  on  certain  conditions,  which  are  to  be 
performed  at  the  custom-house  or  office  of  admiralty  in  the  port  from 

*  There  is  a  defect  in  the  form  of  the  passport  as  it  stands  in  our  treaty,  and  in 
the  treaty  of  Utrecht.  "  Leave  and  permission  have  been  granted  to  A.  B." — but 
it  is  not  expressed  what  the  permission  is  granted  for.  After  the  words  "  laden 
with,"  should  follow,  to  sail  to  such  a  port.  These  words  are  inserted  in  the  more 
ancient  forms,  as  in  that  of  1668. 


84  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

which  the  ship  is  to  depart.  We,  the  Lord  High  Admiral,  or  in  our 
own  case,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  sends  greeting — Be  it 
known,  that  we  have  granted  leave  and  permission  to  A.  B.  to  sail  from 
such  a  port  to  such  a  port,  after  he  shall  have  performed  certain  condi- 
tions at  the  custom-house.  These  conditions  are,  that  the  ship  shall  be 
visited  or  searched — that  the  master  shall  make  oath  that  the  ship  be- 
longs to  one  or  more  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  [the  act  or 
certificate  of  which  oath  is  to  be  subjoined  to  the  form] — that  he  shall 
also  make  oath  that  he  will  observe,  and  cause  to  be  observed  by  his 
crew,  the  marine  ordinances  and  regulations. 

When  these  conditions  are  performed,  the  leave  or  permission  to  sail 
becomes  absolute.  To  render  this  transaction  effectual,  the  officer  of 
the  customs  must  certify  that  these  requisite  conditions  have  been  per- 
formed. 

In  the  form  of  the  certificate  in  our  passports,  there  is  a  deviation 
from  the  precise  words  in  the  form  of  permission.  The  latter  requires 
the  commander  of  the  ship  to  swear  that  she  belongs  to  one  or  more  of 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  In  the  certificate  the  words  are,  the 
master  has  declared  upon  oath  that  the  vessel  is  of  the  United  States. 
And  in  the  form  of  permission,  it  is  required,  that  he  shall  make  oath 
that  he  will  keep  and  cause  to  be  kept  by  his  crew,  the  marine  ordi- 
nances ;  but  in  the  certificate  no  mention  is  made  that  this  part  of  the 
oath  has  been  taken.  Perhaps  these  variations  from  the  form  are  not 
material ;  but  in  the  old  forms  annexed  to  the  treaties  in  1674  and  1713, 

the  form  of  the  oath  is  subjoined,  and  is  in  general  terms :  "  We , 

of  the  admiralty  of ,  do  certify  that  A.  B.  master  of  the  ship 

named  in  the  above  passport,  has  taken  the  oath  mentioned  therein." 
Perhaps  this  general  oath  and  attestation  would  be  more  eligible,  as 
extending  to  all  the  provisions  in  the  passport. 

As  to  the  list  of  the  crew  and  passengers,  opinions  are  not  united. 
The  French  maintain  that  the  ship  of  a  neutral,  in  time  of  war,  should 
carry  papers  to  prove  not  only  the  property  of  the  ship,  and  goods  on 
board,  but  that  she  is  not  navigated  by  their  enemies,  and  contains  no 
soldiers  in  the  service  of  her  enemies.  The  American  government 
contends  that  the  treaty  requires  no  such  role  d''equipage  to  be  on 
board,  and  that  full  credit  ought  to  be  given  to  the  passport  in  its  gene- 
ral form. 

Considering  the  purposes  for  which  the  requirements  in  the  passport 
were  intended,  there  can  be  no  question  that  our  vessels  ought,  on  the 
rupture  between  Great  Britain  and  France,  to  have  been  furnished  with 
such  papers  as  would  be  good  evidence  that  their  crews  and  passengers 
were  not  liable  to  seizure,  as  persons  in  the  service  of  the  enemies  of 
France.  All  other  persons  being  protected  by  treaty,  it  was  proper 
and  necessary  for  their  safety,  that  their  persons  and  characters  should 
be  so  described,  as  not  to  expose  them  to  be  molested  on  suspicion. 
This  was  the  more  essential,  as  the  Americans  and  English,  speaking 
the  same  language,  can  not  well  be  distinguished  by  foreigners  ;  and 
American  soldiers  on  board  of  an  American  ship,  without  due  evidence 
of  their  nativity  and  residence,  would  have  been  liable  to  suspicion,  and 
subject  to  vexations.  It  is  no  excuse  to  say,  that  the  French  were  law- 
less and  paid  no  regard  to  papers — that  was  often  true  ;  but  there  were 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  85 

many  instances  in  which  respect  was  paid  to  proper  documents.  Be- 
sides, all  governments  should  use  every  possible  caution,  in  time  of 
war,  to  guard  their  citizens  and  property.  If  they  are  negligent  in 
furnishing  the  papers  required  by  treaties,  they  can  lay  no  claim  to 
damages  for  injuries  sustained. 

Although  the  treaty,  by  express  words,  does  not  require  a  neutral 
ship  to  carry  a  role  (fequipage,  yet  when  we  consider  the  purpose  of 
inserting,  in  the  passport,  a  demand  that  the  master  shall  deposit  a  list 
of  his  crew  and  passengers  in  the  custom-house,  designating  their 
names,  places  of  birth  and  abode  ;  together  with  the  last  clause  of  the 
23d  article  of  the  treaty,  which  protects  all  persons  on  board,  except 
soldiers  in  actual  service  of  the  enemy,  and  leaves  them  to  be  seized 
as  prisoners,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  American  vessels  ought, 
within  the  spirit  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  treaty,  to  have  been  fur- 
nished with  the  list  of  all  persons  on  board.  Even  without  the  specifi- 
cation of  these  particulars  in  the  form  of  the  passport,  the  23d  article 
of  the  treaty  would  have  rendered  such  a  list,  duly  certified,  actually 
necessary  to  the  safety  of  persons  on  board,  who  were  not  soldiers  in 
the  actual  service  of  Great  Britain.  The  prescribing  of  such  a  paper 
would  have  resulted  from  the  treaty,  as  an  executive  duty,  by  way  of 
precaution,  to  secure  to  innocent  seamen  and  passengers  the  benefits  of 
the  treaty.  It  is  a  paper  analogous  to  the  certificate  of  lading,  and  de- 
signed to  secure  the  persons  on  board  from  molestation,  as  the  certifi- 
cate secures  the  goods. 

But  the  want  of  this  paper  was  no  more  a  just  ground  for  confiscating 
American  vessels  and  cargoes,  than  the  want  of  Tom  Thumb's  Folio, 
or  the  Pilgrim's  Progress.  The  passport,  certificate  of  lading,  and  list 
of  the  crew  and  passengers,  are  papers  intended  to  secure  vessels  at 
sea  from  the  vexations  of  search  and  detention  ;  and  are  not  absolutely 
essential  to  prove  the  neutrality  of  the  property  and  persons.  Any 
other  papers,  or  any  facts  which  afford  satisfactory  proof  of  neutral 
property,  are  sufficient,  before  an  impartial  tribunal,  to  protect  the  ship 
and  cargo  from  condemnation.  The  decree  of  the  French,  therefore, 
subjecting  vessels  to  confiscation  for  want  of  the  role,  was  a  flagrant 
breach  of  good  faith,  a  direct  infraction  of  the  treaty,  and  an  outrage 
on  the  rights  of  neutral  commerce.  Under  this  decree,  however,  a  vast 
amount  of  American  property  was  piratically  seized,  and  condemned 
by  the  unprincipled  tribunals  of  an  unprincipled  government.  The  want 
of  the  role  was  the  pretext,  and  vessels  furnished  with  it  did  often  es- 
cape capture,  while  those  which  were  destitute  of  it  were  seized  and 
condemned. 

The  effect  of  the  authorized  depredations  on  our  trade,  were  such  as 
might  have  been  expected.  The  commanders  of  ships,  and  especially 
of  privateers,  often  lawless  men,  and  urged  by  the  hope  of  gain,  soon 
found  means  to  extend  their  captures  to  cases  never  contemplated  by 
their  sovereigns.  The  courts  of  admiralty  in  the  West  Indies,  under 
the  authority  of  profligate  and  needy  judges,  became  partners  in  the 
nefarious  work  of  plunder,  and  what  was  seized  on  flimsy  or  forged 
pretenses,  was  condemned  without  law  ;  while  the  privateersmen  and 
the  judge  joined  in  dividing  the  spoil.  In  the  mean  time,  piracy  lifted 
her  audacious  front,  and  the  sea  swarmed  with  picaroons,  consisting  of 


86  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

a  banditti  of  negroes,  mulattoes  and  outlaws,  who,  encouraged  by  im- 
punity, proceeded  to  arm  small  vessels  and  boats  without  commissions, 
and  robbed  the  defenseless  trade  of  our  citizens. 

Every  occasion  was  seized,  by  the  powers  at  war,  to  vex  and  de- 
stroy our  trade.  Wherever  the  Americans  found  a  beneficial  opening 
for  trade,  the  port  was  blockaded,  or  declared  to  be  so ;  or  their  car- 
goes were  seized,  as  being  the  growth  or  manufacture  of  the  enemy 
of  a  belligerent  power.  In  this  manner  has  our  commerce  suffered,  in 
consequence  of  the  various  instructions  of  the  British  and  French  gov- 
ernments to  their  armed  ships ;  and  most  of  the  depredations,  I  am 
sorry  to  say,  have  been  committed  under  color  o£ pretended  laios  of  na- 
tions^ on  one  part,  or  of  the  necessity  and  justice  of  resorting  to  the  law 
of  retaliation,  on  the  other. 

After  suffering  innumerable  losses  and  vexations  from  the  belligerent 
powers,  the  United  States,  by  a  new  convention,  obtained  relief  from 
capture  and  condemnation  by  the  citizens  of  France  ;  and  by  spirited 
remonstrances  to  the  court  of  Great  Britain,  they  obtained  some  restric- 
tions to  be  imposed  upon  the  cruisers  of  that  power,  and  a  new  organ- 
ization of  her  colonial  courts  of  admiralty,  which  promises  a  diminu- 
tion of  depredations  and  abuses.  But  the  British  ministry  have  aban- 
doned no  part  of  their  claim  to  interrupt,  on  emergencies  of  which  they 
are  to  judge,  all  the  commerce  of  a  neutral  nation  with  their  enemy, 
according  to  the  laws  of  nations.  While  they  maintain  this  principle, 
neutrals  can  enjoy  no  more  than  a  temporary  respite  from  vexations 
and  plunder.  The  claim  of  their  armed  ships  and  colonial  courts,  to 
take  and  confiscate  property  in  neutral  vessels,  because  it  had  grown 
or  was  made  on  their  enemy's  territory — a  claim  which  had  long 
vexed  our  trade  to  the  Spanish  colonies — has  been  determined  by  the 
admiralty  court  in  England  to  be  illegal.  But  whether  neutrals  shall 
be  permitted  to  carry  that  species  of  property,  from  the  colonies  to  the 
mother  country  of  their  enemy,  is  a  question  that  the  court  has  not  yet 
decided.  May  the  genius  of  civilization  deliver  nations  at  peace,  from 
British  constructions  of  the  law  of  nations  ! 

During  these  spoliations  of  American  commerce,  the  northern  pow- 
ers of  Europe  were  not  able  to  escape  similar  injuries.  Their  trade 
with  France  and  Spain  was  occasionally  interrupted,  in  violation  of 
their  treaties  with  Great  Britain  ;  but  nothing  happened  to  threaten  a 
rupture,  till  a  British  squadron  captured  a  Swedish  convoy,  for  refusing 
to  j>ermit  the  ships  to  be  searched.  This  seizure,  with  some  other  dif- 
ferences, alarmed  and  roused  the  indignation,  not  of  Sweden  only,  but 
of  all  the  Baltic  nations ;  and  contributed  to  revive  the  project  of  a 
confederacy  for  the  defense  of  neutral  rights,  similar  to  the  armed 
neutrality  of  1780.  As  the  French  scrupled  not  to  ascribe  to  the 
intrigues  and  gold  of  the  English,  the  coalition  of  powers  against 
France,  as  well  as  the  intestine  disturbances  and  civil  wars,  by  which 
their  country  has  been  afflicted  ;  so  the  British  retorted  on  every  occa- 
sion, and  ascribed  to  the  intrigues  of  France,  all  the  schemes  of  neigh- 
boring powers,  that  opposed  their  views  of  unlimited  dominion  on  the 
ocean.  Charges  like  these  answer  the  purpose  of  irritating  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  two  countries  against  each  other,  and  keeping  alive  national 
'resentment ;  but  a  distant  spectator  has  no  concern  with  them.     That 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTEALS.  iSff 

the  French  promoted  and  wished  success  to  the  confederacy,  is  true  ; 
it  was  their  policy  to  promote  it,  and  it  was  consistent  with  the  maxims 
which  the  monarchs  of  France  had  followed  for  several  centuries. 

But  the  Baltic  nations  had  motives  sufficient  for  attempting  the  con« 
federacy,  in  the  policy  and  necessity  of  securing  to  their  commerce  an 
exemption  from  arbitrary  and  illegal  detentions  and  vexations.  The 
league  consisted  of  Russia,  Sweden,  and  Denmark — to  which  also  ac- 
ceded the  King  of  Prussia.  As  the  principles  of  free  commerce,  which 
they  associated  to  defend,  are  principally  the  same  as  those  of  the 
armed  neutrality  in  1780,  already  explained,  it  is  not  necessary  to  re- 
peat an  explanation  of  them.  It  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  the  confed- 
eracy was  managed  with  far  less  ability  than  that  of  1780,  when  the 
celebrated  Catherine  swayed  the  scepter  of  Russia.  The  spirit  of 
Great  Britain,  seconded  by  the  prompt  and  energetic  measures  of  the 
ministry,  and  the  daring  enterprise  of  Admiral  Nelson,  dissipated,  by 
the  single  battle  of  Copenhagen,  all  the  hopes  which  neutral  nations 
had  entertained,  of  seeing  the  freedom  of  commerce  established  on  the 
principles,  by  which  Great  Britain  and  all  maritime  nations  had  agreed 
to  regulate  their  mutual  intercourse,  for  more  than  a  century  preceding. 

The  victory  near  Copenhagen  was  followed  by  an  armistice,  and  a 
negociation,  which  produced  a  new  commercial  treaty  between  Great 
Britain  and  Russia,  dated  June  17,  1801.  By  this  treaty,  Russia  has 
secured  in  part  the  advantages  contemplated  by  the  confederacy.  It 
is  stipulated  that  ships  of  the  neutral  power,  shall  navigate  freely  to 
the  ports  and  upon  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war,  agreeable  to  the 
tenor  of  all  the  old  treaties.  But  by  this  convention,  enemy's  property 
is  not  protected  on  board  of  a  neutral  ship.  This  is  an  abandonment, 
on  the  part  of  Russia,  of  a  principle  which  had  been  recognized  in  all 
preceding  commercial  treaties  ;  and  it  is  a  strong  evidence  of  what  has 
been  before  observed,  that  the  British  cabinet  is  aiming,  with  steady 
but  persevering  policy,  to  expunge  from  the  political  code  of  Europe, 
every  stipulation  which  is  supposed  to  abridge  the  privileges,  permitted 
to  a  belligerent  power  by  the  pretended  laws  of  nations. 

By  this  convention,  the  list  of  contraband  is  not  increased,  and  a  state 
of  blockade,  one  subject  of  contention,  is  defined,  nearly  as  in  old  trea- 
ties. The  right  of  search,  a  principal  subject  of  dispute,  is  regulated 
in  a  manner  more  satisfactory  than  the  former  claim  of  Great  Britain. 
It  is  permitted  to  ships  of  war  only,  and  not  to  privateers ;  and  such 
precautions  are  to  be  observed,  as  to  render  the  transaction  less  liable 
to  abuse.  It  is  also  agreed  that  merchandise,  the  growth  or  manufac- 
ture of  an  enemy's  country,  shall  not  be  considered  as  enemy's  prop- 
erty, if  acquired  by  the  subjects  of  the  neutral  party,  and  transported 
on  their  account.  This  stipulation  meets  in  part  the  evil  of  laying  open 
to  seizure  enemy's  property  in  neutral  ships,  as  it  is  imposing  upon  the 
subjects  of  the  neutral  power  the  necessity  of  purchasing  such  property, 
instead  of  taking  it  on  freight.  But  this  regulation  will  produce  anoth- 
er inconvenience  of  no  small  magnitude  ;  it  will  encourage  innumerable 
fictitious  sales  to  cover  the  property  of  an  enemy  ;  and  as  it  is  extreme- 
ly difficult  to  conceal  these  transactions  from  the  eyes  of  clerks,  sea- 
men, boys  and  servants,  who  are  liable  to  be  tampered  with,  for  the 
purpose  of  obtaining  disclosures,  all  fraudulent  or  fictitious  sales  expose 


88  BIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

the  neutral  to  vexations  without  number,  and,  hold  out  strong  induce- 
ments to  corruption  and  perjury. 

Russia,  from  its  interior  situation,  is  principally  concerned  in  the  trans- 
portation of  articles  of  its  own  growth  and  manufacture  ;  and  therefore 
less  censurable,  by  its  own  subjects,  for  relinquishing  privileges  attach- 
ed to  the  business  of  freighting.  But  other  nations,  and  especially  the 
United  States,  whose  positions  and  advantages  render  them  the  natural 
carriers  of  the  produce  of  the  West  Indies  to  every  part  of  Europe, 
can  not  behold,  without  deep  regret,  any  encroachment  of  the  maritime 
powers  on  the  freedom  of  the  carrying  trade.  We  however  ought  to 
be  silent  on  the  subject,  as  our  government  has  surreridered,  to  the  im- 
potent and  undefined  obligation  of  the  general  law  of  nations,  the  privi- 
lege of  protecting  by  neutrality  the  goods  of  belligerent  nations.  And 
having  abandoned  the  principle,  in  our  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  with 
what  face  shall  we  claim  the  benefits  of  it,  in  our  future  commercial 
conventions  with  other  nations  ?  No  government  can  with  propriety 
consent  to  stipulate  with  us  that  {ree  ships  shall  make  free  goods,  since 
this  would  secure  the  goods  of  their  enemy  in  our  ships,  while  it  would 
leave  their  own  exposed  to  seizure  and  confiscation  by  Great  Britain. 
To  such  unequal  terms,  no  commercial  nation  can  agree,  without  de- 
serting the  essential  interests  of  its  subjects. 

Having  given  a  sketch  of  the  principles  and  practice  of  nations  in 
regard  to  neutral  commerce,  I  will  proceed  to  examine  the  grounds  of 
the  "  general  laws  of  nations,"  as  they  are  called,  respecting  nations  at 
war. 

The  principle  on  which  belligerent  nations  pretend  to  justify  their  in- 
terruption of  the  trade  of  neutrals  to  their  enemies,  is,  that  they  have  a 
right  to  use  all  possible  means  to  weaken  the  enemy,  deprive  him  of  re- 
sources for  continuing  the  war,  and  thus  reduce  him  to  the  necessity  of 
agreeing  to  terms  of  peace.  To  obtain  clear  ideas  of  this  question,  it 
is  necessary  then  to  examine  what  are  called  "  the  rights  of  war." 

It  is  not  necessary,  in  this  place,  to  determine  a  question,  agitated  by 
the  theoretical  writers,  whether  the  natural  state  of  mankind  is  a  state 
of  war  or  of  peace.  It  is  sufficient  to  observe  that  the  first  knowledge 
we  have  of  man,  either  from  history  or  from  discovering  new  islands 
and  countries,  exhibits  him  in  a  state  of  hostility  with  his  neighbors.  I 
do  not  recollect  an  instance,  that  can  be  safely  alledged  to  be  an  excep- 
tion to  this  remark.  If  therefore  a  state  of  war  is  not  natural,  it  is  ac- 
quired very  early  by  savage  tribes,  and  it  is  a  melancholy  truth,  that 
this  state  is  continued  through  every  stage  of  national  progress. 

The  first  objects  of  war  among  savages  are,  victory  for  the  sake  of 
the  reputation  of  superior  bravery,  or  the  spoil  of  the  vanquished. — 
(Liv.  7,29.  Charlevoix  I,  381.)  Then  follows  war  for  the  sake  of 
territorial  acquisitions,  for  commercial  advantages,  for  revenge  or  satis- 
faction for  injuries.  The  savage  tribes  of  North  America  were  found 
in  a  state  of  war,  which  was  undertaken  chiefly  for  the  first  object,  that 
of  enjoying  the  reputation  of  the  bravest  warriors,  and  exercising  an  in- 
sulting dominion  over  tribes  less  powerful  or  courageous. 

The  next  stage  of  society  exhibits  small  clans  or  tribes  of  men,  ma- 
king war  on  each  other  for  the  sake  of  plunder,  and  this  object,  as  if 
was  of  early  origin  and  long  duration,  impressed  upon  the  practice  and 
customs  of  war  many  features  which  are  retained  to  this  day. 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  ^ 

When  nations  engaged  in  war  for  the  sake  of  plunder,  the  spoil  was 
either  the  property  of  the  soldiers  who  seized  it,  or  of  the  prince  or 
state.  Similar  was  the  distribution  of  the  booty,  obtained  in  wars  un- 
dertaken for  other  causes.  We  have  a  remarkable  instance,  related  in 
the  thirty-first  chapter  of  Numbers.  The  nation  of  Midian  having  been 
destroyed  by  the  Israelites,  the  spoil  was  divided,  one  half  among  the 
soldiers  who  had  performed  the  service,  and  the  other  half  among  the 
whole  congregation.  A  fiftieth  of  the  whole  was  reserved  for  the  Le- 
vites,  to  be  dedicated  as  an  offering  to  the  Lord.  But  it  is  observable 
that  the  officers  and  soldiers  took  a  part  of  the  prey  to  themselves,  verse 
53,  which  had  not  been  thrown  into  the  common  stock,  and  of  this  they 
brought  an  oblation  to  the  Lord.  The  males  of  the  Midianites  were  all 
slain  ;  the  females  and  children  were  taken  prisoners,  and  were  consid- 
ered as  a  part  of  the  prey,  verse  1 L  It  is  proper  that  the  reader  should 
note  this  circumstance,  that  not  only  the  goods,  but  the  persons  of  ene- 
mies were  anciently  considered  and  treated  as  spoil. 

That  individual  officers  and  men,  at  the  destruction  of  Midian,  seized 
and  appropriated  a  part  of  the  spoil  to  themselves,  is  asserted  in  the 
chapter  quoted ;  but  either  the  practice  of  the  children  of  Israel  was 
not  uniform,  or  was  altered  within  a  few  years  ;  for  Achan  was  punish- 
ed with  merciless  rigor,  for  taking  and  concealing  a  part  of  the  plunder 
of  Jericho,  in  disobedience  to  Joshua's  orders.  It  is  probable  that  the 
original  practice  was,  for  the  soldiers  to  retain  all  the  booty  which  they 
took,  and  that  this  practice  was  altered  by  the  command  of  Moses  or 
Joshua,  who  considered  the  prey  as  belonging  to  the  whole  congrega- 
tion, but  often  gave  it  all  to  the  soldiers.  Thus  the  spoils  of  Jericho 
were  all  destroyed,  except  the  silver,  gold,  and  vessels  of  brass  and  iron, 
which  were  directed  to  be  deposited  in  the  treasury  of  the  Lord.  The 
spoils  of  Ai,  on  the  other  hand,  were  all  given  to  the  people. 

Among  the  primitive  Romans,  the  spoil,  which  was  a  principal  object 
of  their  wars,  was  probably  distributed  among  the  soldiers,  and  this  was 
their  only  reward,  as  I  have  already  observed,  till  the  349th  year  of  the 
city.  That  they  claimed  the  whole  plunder  of  the  enemy's  camp,  ap- 
pears from  the  resentment  they  showed  against  the  senate  and  their  gen- 
eral, who,  on  vanquishing  the  Volsci,  A.  U.  C.  269,  sold  the  spoil  and 
deposited  the  money  in  the  public  treasury.  The  phrase  which  the  his- 
torian uses,  in  relating  the  fact,  "  militem  prcedd  fraudavere,''''  (they  de- 
frauded the  soldiery  of  the  spoil,)  is  further  evidence  that  by  former  prac- 
tice, the  soldiers  had  a  just  claim  to  the  plunder,  and  considered  the  ap- 
propriation of  it  to  public  uses  as  a  fraud  or  injury. — (Liv.  2,  42  ;  10,  46.) 

A  like  sale  of  the  plunder  in  the  year  299,  occasioned  a  similar  un- 
easiness in  the  army ;  although  it  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  on  ac- 
count of  the  low  state  of  the  treasury.  The  tribunes  made  this  appro- 
priation of  the  spoil  to  the  public,  a  ground  of  accusation  against  the 
consuls. — (Liv.  3,  3L) 

That  the  question  whether  the  spoil  should  belong  to  the  republic  or 
to  the  soldiers,  was  not  clearly  settled  till  a  much  later  period,  we  see 
in  Livy,  5, 20,  when  M.  F.  Camillus,  the  dictator,  referred  it  to  the  sen- 
ate to  determine  in  what  manner  the  booty  of  the  city  of  Veji  should 
be  disposed  of.  After  much  debate,  it  was  agreed  that  the  soldiers 
should  have  it.     But  the  free  citizens  taken  captive  were  sold,  and  the 

12 


■m 

90  ^v.   ^^       RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

money  placed  in  the  treasury,  which  occasioned  no  small  resentment  in 
the  plebeians.  This  was  in  the  year  359.  In  361,  a  like  appropriation 
of  the  spoil  of  a  vanquished  enemy  to  the  republic,  was  greatly  resent- 
ed by  the  soldiery  ;  but  the  stern  virtue  of  Camillus,  while  it  incurred 
their  hatred,  inspired  them  with  admiration  and  commanded  obedience. 
— (Liv.  5,  26.) 

These  facts  prove  that,  in  early  times,  the  soldiers  fought  for  plunder, 
and  claimed  it  as  their  right ;  and  that  they  did  not  readily  yield  this 
right  to  the  claims  of  the  public.  The  claim  of  the  state,  however,  was 
finally  established ;  and  it  is  now  held  to  be  the  law  of  nations,  that  all 
the  goods  of  an  enemy,  when  taken,  belong  to  the  prince  or  state  of  the 
conquering  party,  by  the  "  rights  of  war." 

These  facts,  and  others  which  are  related  concerning  the  mode  of 
warfare  among  uncivilized  men,  in  every  age  and  country,  unfold  the 
true  origin  of  the  "  right"  of  a  conqueror  to  the  property  of  his  enemy. 
This  origin  was,  the  ancient  practice  of  making  war  for  plunder — that 
is,  public  robbery.  Savages  prefer  war  and  robbery  to  labor  ;  and  the 
practice  of  making  war  for  the  spoil  of  a  neighboring  tribe  or  clan,  con- 
tinuing age  after  age,  as  men  were  prompted  by  avarice,  stimulated  by 
revenge,  or  fired  with  the  love  of  glory,  became  universal ;  and  the  bar- 
barous custom  was  finally  honored  with  the  title  of  the  "  law  of  nations." 

It  is  no  inconsiderable  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this  explication,  that 
the  Latin  word  jrrc^do,  a  robber,  is  from  the  same  root  as  prceda,  prey  or 
spoil,  indicating  that  national  plunderers  and  robbers  were  originally 
men  of  the  same  profession.  And  indeed  at  this  day,  there  is  much  less 
difl'erence  between  the  two  species  of  robbers,  than  a  superficial  view 
of  the  subject  would  lead  us  to  believe.  The  moderns  have  erected 
specious  theories  on  the  practice  of  plundering  an  enemy,  and  attempt- 
ed to  justify  it,  on  the  ground  of  the  necessity  of  weakening  his  force 
and  disabling  him  from  continuing  the  war.  This  reasoning  is,  howev- 
er, applicable  only  to  the  case  of  a  just  war,  and  is  always  false  when 
used  to  vindicate  the  unjust  aggressor.  And  with  respect  to  almost 
every  modern  nation,,  it  is  not  true  in  fact,  that  the  capture  of  merchan- 
dise on  the  ocean,  or  the  interruption  of  supplies,  destined  to  a  party  at 
war,  does  really  weaken  him  or  deprive  him  of  resources,  so  as  mate- 
rially to  aflfect  the  progress  or  issue  of  the  war.  This  interruption  of 
supplies,  therefore,  is  only  the  pretext  for  continuing  the  practice  of  plun- 
der, which  originated  in  open  robbery;  a  practice  which  multiplies  sea- 
men by  holding  out  the  prospect  of  gain,  and  thus  contributes  to  aug- 
ment the  strength  of  a  naval  power.  But  this  practice  stands  on  pre- 
cisely the  same  ground  as  that  of  the  ancients,  who  raised  and  support- 
ed armies  by  the  spoil  of  their  enemies.  It  is  in  principle  and  fact, 
public  robbery. 

We  have  thus  traced  the  "  law  of  nations,"  "that  all  the  goods  of  a 
vanquished  enemy  belong  to  the  conqueror,"  to  the  savage  practice  of 
making  war  for  plunder.  The  humanity  of  modern  nations,  which,  in 
this  respect,  are  perhaps  half  civilized,  has  modified  this  law  in  a  vari- 
ety of  particulars,  which  will  be  hereafter  mentioned  ;  by  which  the  ca- 
lamities, naturally  resulting  from  the  rigorous  application  of  the  "  rights 
of  war,"  are  considerably  mitigated.  But  the  principle  is  still  laid  down, 
by  all  writers  on  the  laws  of  nature  and  nations,  in  its  utmost  latitude ; 


nWP^'  W 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  91 

and  what  is  singular,  it  is  maintained  chiefly  on  the  authority  of  the 
practice  of  ancient  barbarians,  or  tyrants,  who  acknowledged  no  law 
but  their  own  will. 

Let  us  then  attend  to  another  of  these  "  laws  of  nations,"  that  of  en- 
slaving, or  putting  to  death,  prisoners  of  war.  It  is  well  known,  that  all 
ancient  nations  claimed  the  same  right  of  sovereignty  over  the  persons 
of  their  prisoners,  as  over  their  goods;  and  they  either  slew  them, 
or  sold  them  for  slaves.  And  it  is  remarkable  that  the  word  ser- 
vant bears,  in  its  derivation,  the  proof  of  these  facts,  being  derived 
from  the  Latin  word  servare,  to  save.  Hence  servus,  a  servant,  or 
slave,  originally  denoting  one  whose  life  was  saved,  when  he  was  taken 
prisoner,  indicated  a  practice  of  putting  prisoners  to  death,  which  ava- 
rice and  humanity  abolished  ;  substituting  the  practice  of  selling  prison- 
ers at  auction  and  depositing  the  money  in  the  public  treasury. — (See 
Liv.  5,  22  ;  10,  46  ;  23,  37.     Grotius,  lib.  3,  10.) 

Such  was  the  practice  among  the  Romans  and  Greeks,  who  made 
war,  not  only  to  obtain  goods  and  cattle,  but  men,  who  were  equally 
valuable  commodities  in  market.  By  these  they  enriched  the  public 
treasury,  and  furnished  their  citizens  with  slaves  to  perform  all  their  la- 
bor, and  this  in  late,  and  what  is  called  civilized  periods  of  their  com- 
monwealths. The  practice  was  essentially  the  same  in  principle,  as 
that  now  subsisting  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  where  the  maritime  tribes 
make  war  upon  their  neighbors,  on  purpose  to  obtain  prisoners  to  sell 
to  European  traders. 

This  is  another  sample  of  the  "  rights  of  war,"  sanctioned  by  the 
practice  of  all  savage  nations,  and  not  yet  banished  from  the  "  laws  of 
nations."  It  is  still  held  that  soldiers  in  a  place  taken  by  assault,  may, 
by  the  "  laws  of  war,"  be  put  to  death,  after  the  place  is  reduced,  and 
the  defenders  have  surrendered ;  a  relic  of  ancient  barbarism  that  dis- 
graces our  manners  and  our  laws. 

But  the  "  rights  of  war"  were  not  limited  by  the  reduction  of  a 
prisoner  to  a  slave  ;  they  transferred  to  the  purchaser  or  master,  the 
power  of  the  state  over  a  prisoner  ;  that  is,  the  power  of  life  and  death  ; 
and  what  was,  if  possible,  worse,  the  posterity  of  a  female  slave  were 
condemned  to  the  same  condition. — (See  the  authorities  cited  by  Gro- 
tius, lib.  3.     Burlemaqui,  part  iv,  ch.  6  ;  and  the  Roman  code.) 

This  is  not  all.  Even  women  and  children  were  anciently  compre- 
hended within  these  barbarous  "  rights  of  war,"  and  were  often  con- 
demned to  promiscuous  slaughter.  I  say  often ;  for  the  humanity  of 
the  general  sometimes  interposed  to  save  them ;  but,  as  Grotius  ob- 
serves, it  was  one  of  the  "  rights  of  war"  to  put  them  to  death.  See 
the  authorities  quoted  by  Grotius,  lib.  3,  9.  When  Syphax  was  con- 
quered by  Scipio,  the  general  declared,  that  Syphax  himself,  his  wife, 
his  kingdom,  his  lands,  his  towns,  his  subjects,  and  all  his  property,  be- 
come the  prey  of  Romans. — (Liv.  30,  14.) 

To  complete  this  system  of  the  "  laws  of  war,"  it  was  the  practice 
of  belligerent  nations  to  burn,  ravage  and  destroy  every  useful  thing 
in  an  enemy's  country.  In  the  wars  between  the  Romans  and  Philip 
of  Macedon,  in  Greece,  in  which  the  different  states  of  Greece  engaged 
on  different  sides,  the  Athenians,  in  a  council  of  the  Etolians,  are  in- 
troduced, as  addressing  to  ^the  council  language  of  this  kind:  "  Our 


^  EIGHTS    OP    NEUTRALS. 

country  is  ravaged  and  depopulated ;  but  of  this  we  do  not  complain. 
This  devastation  is  the  consequence  of  the  '  rights  of  war,'  and  as  it  is 
proper  to  commit  such  hostile  acts,  so  it  is  proper  to  submit  to  them. 
That  our  houses  are  burnt,  our  fields  laid  waste  with  fire,  our  citizens 
and  their  cattle  seized  as  prey,  is  rather  a  nnsfortune  than  a  subject  of 
resentment."  They  then  proceed  to  complain  of  the  violation  of  tombs 
and  temples,  as  the  deed  of  barbarians. — (See  Liv.  31,  30  ;  34,  57  ; 
36,  24,  42.) 

These  customs  and  practices  of  savage  nations  constitute  the  ground- 
work of  the  modern  "  rights  of  war,"  which,  without  a  recurrence  to 
their  origin,  can  not  be  perfectly  understood.  From  this  deplorable 
condition,  when  war  was  marked  with  useless  cruelty  and  destruction, 
and  followed  by  the  slavery  of  the  vanquished,  humanity  has  been,  for 
ages,  striving  to  extricate  mankind.  Prisoners  are  no  longer  slain  in 
cool  blood,  nor  sold  for  slaves — but  redeemed  or  exchanged.  Women 
and  children  are  not  slain,  unless  by  some  barbarous  nations,  in  towns 
taken  by  them.  Rarely  are  fields  ravaged  and  houses  burnt,  merely  for 
the  sake  of  destruction  ;  nor  is  the  soldier  permitted  to  pillage,  except 
on  the  field  of  battle,  unless  in  some  cases  when  towns  or  forts  are  taken 
by  assault.  In  many  cases,  though  not  always,  the  defenders  of  a  town, 
taken  by  storm,  receive  quarter;  and  in  most  cases,  soldiers  are  forbid- 
den to  plunder  individuals  of  their  property,  especially  the  peaceable 
husbandman  and  artisan. 

It  follows  that  the  ancient  "  rights  of  war"  have  ,  been  found  incon- 
venient, as  well  as  inhuman ;  that  they  were  not  essential  to  a  state  of 
war,  nor  founded  on  natural  justice,  but  arbitrary  in  their  origin,  and 
mischievous  in  their  effects. 

Similar  remarks  are  applicable  to  the  primitive  state  of  navigation 
and  commerce.  The  word  pirate,  derived  from  a  Greek  verb,  signify- 
ing to  attempt,  to  risk  or  encounter  danger,  originally  denoted  merely 
a  seaman  or  marine  soldier.  In  the  civilized  ages  of  Greece,  however, 
the  word  came  to  denote  a  sea-robber.  (See  Liv.  37,  27,  who  uses  the 
word  in  the  sense  of  prcedo-maritimus,  which  he  had  used,  lib.  7,  25.) 
Under  the  Saxon  kings  of  England,  the  word  was  used  to  denote  a 
common  seaman,  or  marine  soldier  ;  and  the  commander  of  these  pi- 
rates was  denominated  archipirata,  arch-pirate.  King  Alfred  ordered 
long  vessels  to  be  built  for  the  defense  of  the  kingdom,  and  placing 
"  pirates"  on  board,  intrusted  to  them  the  protection  of  navigation. 
When  Robert,  Count  of  Normandy,  attempted  to  land  an  army  in  Eng- 
land, he  was  repulsed  by  the  "  pirates"  of  King  William.  (See  the 
laws,  charters  and  authors,  cited  in  Spelman's  Glossary,  Art.  Pirate.) 
The  word  archipirata  is  once  used  by  Livy,  (lib.  37,  11,)  for  the  com- 
mander  of  a  small  squadron  of  vessels,  in  the  sense  of  our  Admiral  or 
Commodore. 

Hence  it  appears,  that  the  profession  of  a  seaman  was  so  commonly 
connected  with  lawless  plundering  on  the  ocean,  in  the  middle  ages, 
that  the  word  itself  lost  its  original  meaning  and  came  to  denote  solely 
a  sea-robber ;  in  the  same  manner  as  villain,  a  word  originally  denot- 
ing a  laborer  or  servant,  by  the  usual  character  of  dishonesty  attached 
to  those  classes  of  people  in  their  humbled  condition,  under  the  feudal 
system,  came  to  signify  a  man  without  integrity.     To  trace  such  chan- 


EIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  93 

ges  in  language,  is  to  learn  the  history  of  man,  and  the  connection  be- 
tween his  occupation  and  his  character. 

These  authorities  are  sufficient  to  prove  the  points  intended — that 
most  of  what  are  called  the  "  rights  of  war,"  and  many  of  what  are 
called  the  "  laws  of  nations,"  had  their  origin  in  the  uncontrolled  pas- 
sions of  lawless  barbarians.  To  the  humanizing  influence  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  and  to  the  refinements  in  society  which  have  substituted 
the  arts  of  husbandry,  manufactures  and  commerce,  in  lieu  of  the  trade 
of  war  and  rapine,  are  modern  nations  indebted  for  the  discontinuance 
of  many  barbarous  usages,  which  had  been  dignified  as  laws  and  rights* 
But  however  we  may  boast  of  modern  refinement,  a  careful  comparison 
of  the  present  maxims  of  war,  or  laws  of  nations,  with  the  principles 
of  natural  right,  or  national  justice,  will  convince  a  candid  inquirer, 
that  nations,  in  regard  to  their  intercourse  with  each  other,  especially 
in  war,  are  little  more  than  half  civilized. 

If  soldiers  are  not  permitted  to  pillage  without  restraint,  yet  by  the 
present  pretended  laws  of  nations,  the  conquering  prince  or  general 
may  impose  contributions  on  an  enemy's  country,  without  any  rule  but 
his  own  will.  Writers  attempt  to  justify  this  practice,  on  the  ground  of 
a  right  in  a  conqueror  to  punish  for  a  public  injury,  to  procure  damages, 
or  disable  an  enemy.  But  this  principle  is  applicable  only  to  a  justifia- 
ble war,  and  is  just  as  likely  to  operate  in  favor  of  the  aggressor,  as  of 
the  injured  party.  Let  the  oppressed  nations  which  have  fallen  under 
the  fangs  of  French  republicans  for  seven  years  past,  bear  testimony  to 
the  evils  of  vindictive  contributions ;  and  determine  how  far  the  pres- 
ent practice  is  a  mitigation  of  the  barbarous  custom  of  general  plunder. 

If  prisoners  are  not  liable  to  be  put  to  death  or  enslaved,  by  the  pres- 
ent rules  of  war,  yet  an  exception  exists  in  favor  of  ancient  barbarism, 
in  the  cruel  practice  of  butchering  the  garrisons  of  a  fortress  taken  by 
assault — a  practice  not  warranted  either  by  justice,  necessity  or  utility. 
Let  the  mangled  bodies  of  the  brave  defenders  of  Fort  Griswold,  in 
Connecticut ;  let  the  thousands  of  unresisting  soldiers,  and  helpless 
women  and  children,  slaughtered  after  the  capture  of  Ismail  and  Praga, 
humble  the  pride  of  modern  pretenders  to  refinement  of  manners,  and 
make  them  blush  for  the  existence  of  the  "  rights  of  war." 

And  what  have  men  gained,  in  modern  days,  in  regard  to  the  safety 
and  rights  of  commerce  ?  It  is  true,  the  merchant  and  the  master  of 
a  ship  is  no  longer  a  pirate,  in  time  of  peace ;  but  in  war,  how  little 
short  of  general  piracy  must  be  the  practice,  if  universally  adopted, 
under  the  pretended  laws  of  nations  ?  If  princes  and  states  adopt  the 
British  principles,  of  arresting  the  trade  of  all  nations  with  their  ene- 
mies, when  they  shall  judge  it  necessary  to  reduce  ihem  to  terms  of 
peace  ;  if  they  can  direct  a  blockade  to  be  formed  by  proclamation, 
and  by  ordering  a  few  ships  to  cruise  along  the  coast  of  a  nation  or  an 
island ;  if  they  can  take  the  property  of  a  friend  in  the  ships  of  an 
enemy,  and  the  goods  of  an  enemy  in  the  vessels  of  a  friend  ;  if  they 
can  extend  the  constructions  of  the  laws  of  contraband  to  cover  every 
species  of  merchandise,  and  prohibit  all  trade  between  an  enemy's 
country  and  her  colonies ;  and  if,  after  establishing  these  principles, 

*  Ward,  on  the  Laws  of  Nations,  Vol,  I,  173,  aud  Vol.  II. 


94  RIGHTS    OF    NEDTRALS. 

which  are  now  actually  maintained  by  Great  Britain  as  the  "  laws  of 
nations,"  war  is  to  exist  at  least  one  half  of  the  time  ;  in  the  name  of 
humanity,  what  have  neutral  nations  left  that  they  can  call  their  own  ? 
Should  these  extravagant  principles  be  universally  admitted,  the  United 
States  will  find  it  not  only  expedient,  but  necessary  to  treat  with  bellig- 
erent nations,  as  with  the  Barbary  states,  and  purchase  temporary  ex- 
emptions from  plunder ;  or  arm  the  whole  of  their  naval  forces  against 
them  as  against  pirates  ;  or  in  time  of  war,  haul  up  and  dismantle  their 
ships,  and  suspend  all  navigation,  till  the  powers  at  war  shall,  in  great 
condescension,  permit  neutral  vessels  to  pass  in  safety.  If  the  United 
States  are  capable  of  recognizing  and  submitting  to  the  establishment 
of  such  principles,  they  merit  degradation,  and  are  prepared  for  a 
master. 

The  preceding  historical  sketches  enable  us  to  estimate  the  value  of 
the  observations  found  in  the  Palladium,  during  the  months  of  February, 
March,  April,  and  May  last. 

A  writer  in  the  paper  of  February  3,  on  the  subject  of  "  free  ships 
make  free  goods,"  remarks  that  "  the  French  call  this  the  modern  law 
of  nations — in  plain  words,  no  law  at  all,  but  a  pretty  little  humbug 
business,  that  they  really  wish  and  are  no  doubt  interested  to  have 
other  nations  observe  as  a  law." 

The  facts  are  directly  the  reverse.  The  English  gave  this  rule  the 
denomination  of  modem  or  new,  to  cast  an  odium  upon  it,  as  an  inno- 
vation;  when  in  fact,  as  I  have  proved,  it  had  been  the  maritime  law 
of  Europe  for  more  than  a  century,  and  of  Great  Britain  especially, 
by  numerous  conventions.  The  Russians,  Swedes,  and  Danes,  called 
it  very  justly,  the  old  law  of  nations,  and  that  was  one  of  their  reasons 
for  confederating  to  maintain  it,  against  the  attempts  of  Great  Britain 
to  innovate,  and  establish  the  contrary  principle. 

The  writer  proceeds,  "  Nations  at  war  have  a  clear,  undoubted  right, 
as  old  as  war  itself,  to  seize  their  enemy's  goods,  wherever  they  caa 
find  them  on  the  high  seas,  that  is  to  say,  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  any 
friendly  nation." 

This  principle,  in  the  latitude  here  stated,  is  not  true.  It  was  indeed 
the  practice  of  barbarous  nations ;  but  without  limitations,  it  is  neither 
more  nor  less  than  the  right  of  robbery.  Among  barbarians,  no  dis- 
tinction was  observed  between  a  just  and  unjust  war  ;  and  with  them, 
plunder  on  both  sides  was  right  and  honorable.  But  among  Christians, 
it  is  a  disgrace  to  stale  the  general  proposition  as  a  right.  To  say  that 
a  nation,  invading  another  without  cause,  has  a  right  to  seize  the 
goods  of  its  citizens,  in  any  place,  is  a  mockery  of  common  sense. 

But  the  proposition,  unmodified,  is  not  true,  even  in  defensive  war. 
Nations  do  not  defend  themselves  for  plunder.  They  resist  an  enemy 
to  preserve  their  independence,  their  tranquillity,  their  safety,  and  to 
obtain  just  satisfaction  for  injuries.  Just  so  far  as  the  shedding  of 
blood  and  the  seizure  of  goods  is  necessary  to  obtain  these  objects,  so 
far  they  are  justifiable  acts,  and  belong  to  the  "  rights  of  war ;"  but  no 
further.  Whenever,  therefore,  a  belligerent  power  has  defeated  an  ag- 
gressing and  injuring  enemy,  and  reduced  him  under  his  dominion,  so 
that  satisfaction  and  peace  can  be  obtained,  without  further  slaughter  or 
plunder,  all  acts  of  hostility  toward  persons  or  goods  become  unjust. 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  95 

because  they  can  proceed  only  from  revenge.  The  laws  of  humanity 
are  paramount  to  any  laws  of  war,  or  positive  institutions.  Every  act 
of  violence,  therefore,  not  necessary  to  defense,  safety,  and  indemnifi- 
cation, is  a  tort.  To  defend  our  just  rights  and  safety,  is  required  by 
humanity  ;  to  push  hostility  beyond  the  means  of  securing  these  objects, 
is  repugnant  to  humanity,  and  of  course  to  modern  right.  In  offensive 
war,  therefore,  the  seizure  of  the  goods  of  the  invaded  enemy,  is 
always  wrong ;  and  in  a  defensive  war,  the  seizure  of  the  invader's 
goods  is  right  only  to  a  limited  extent.  In  cases  where  both  parties 
engage  in  war  from  inordinate  ambition  or  other  unjust  cause,  the  seiz- 
ure of  property  is  of  course  wrong  on  both  sides,  and  this  is  more  gen- 
erally the  fact.— (Grotius,  lib.  3,  12.) 

But  in  regard  to  seizures  on  the  ocean,  an  important  question  is  to 
be  discussed. 

If  the  principle  was  just,  that  belligerent  nations  have  a  right  to 
seize  their  enemy's  goods,  wherever  they  find  them,  on  the  territories  of 
either  of  the  parties,  yet  it  is  agreed  by  all  writers  and  all  men,  that 
the  parties  have  no  right  to  enter  on  the  territories  of  a  neuter  party, 
to  seek  the  goods  of  their  enemy.  This  is  admitted  to  be  true  on  land, 
with  an  exception  however  of  an  extreme  case,  where  an  enemy  can 
not  be  attacked  without  violating  neutral  ground,  as  in  the  case  of  a  fort 
situated  on  the  verge  of  an  enemy's  country,  adjoining  the  limits  of 
friendly  territory. — (See  Vattel,  book  iii,  ch.  7,  sec.  120,  132.  Burle- 
maqui,  part  iv,  ch.  7  and  8.     Liv.  28,  17.) 

But  this  principle  has  never  been  extended  to  give  the  owners  of 
neutral  ships  on  the  high  seas,  or  their  sovereigns,  complete  exclusive 
jurisdiction  over  them,  in  as  ample  manner  as  they  possess  the  right 
and  jurisdiction  over  houses  and  lands.  Yet  I  venture  to  affirm  that  no 
good  reason  exists  for  the  distinction. 

It  is  incident  to  the  very  nature  of  property  or  ownership,  that  the 
owner  has  a  power  over  the  property,  and  a  right  to  exercise  it,  in  exclu- 
sion of  every  other  person.  It  is  equally  incident  to  the  very  nature  of 
sovereignty,  that  the  supreme  authority  of  the  sovereign  is  to  be  exer- 
cised, in  exclusion  of  eveiy  other  person  or  power.  On  these  princi- 
ples, the  territories  of  neutrals  are  held  sacred  in  time  of  war,  and  no 
belligerent  can  step  his  foot  on  them,  without  permission  of  the  sove- 
reign, or  infringing  the  rights  of  sovereignty.  To  suppose  a  qualified 
right  in  nations  at  war,  to  occupy  neutral  ground,  upon  pressing  occa- 
sions, is  to  admit  pretensions  incompatible  with  sovereignty,  and  open  a 
door  for  every  species  of  abuse.  I  can  not,  therefore,  assent  to  the 
exception  above  mentioned,  that  a  belligerent  may,  on  any  occasion, 
lawfully  enter  on  the  territoiy  of  a  neutral,  without  permission  from  the 
sovereign.  Cases  of  this  kind  occur,  and  are  sometimes  overlooked, 
for  the  sake  of  peace  ;  but  they  are  to  be  considered  as  infractions  of 
ihe  jus  publicum ;  not  as  precedents  authorizing  such  trespasses. 

Equally  conclusive  are  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  exclusive  juris- 
diction of  neutrals  over  their  own  ships  on  the  sea.  It  is  admitted  on 
all  hands,  that  the  ocean  is  the  common  highway  of  mankind  ;  and  that 
no  nation  can  appropriate  it  to  its  own  use,  exclusively.  The  only 
right  to  a  particular  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  on  the  ocean  usually  ad- 
mitted, is  within  such  limits  along  the  shores  of  a  country,  as  to  enable 


96  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

the  sovereign  of  the  country  to  protect  his  subjects  from  injury  and  in- 
vasion. By  usage  and  consent  of  nations,  the  waters  within  a  marine 
league  of  the  shore,  are  held  to  be  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of 
the  sovereign  of  the  country. 

But  there  is  another  case  in  which  a  temporary  exclusive  jurisdiction 
over  a  particular  part  of  the  ocean,  may  be  lawfully  exercised.  This 
is  the  case  of  a  ship,  which,  while  on  the  high  seas,  bears  with  it  a 
complete  ownership  and  jurisdiction  over  the  place  it  occupies.  The 
owner  of  the  ship  has  an  exclusive  right  to  so  much  of  the  water  as  is 
necessary,  for  the  time  being,  to  give  the  ship  a  free,  unmolested  pas- 
sage ;  and  any  master  of  another  ship,  who  invades  that  portion  of  the 
water  thus  occupied  or  necessary  for  a  free  passage,  or  who  in  any 
manner  annoys  the  occupant,  is  as  much  a  trespasser,  and  subject  to 
respond  in  damages,  as  a  man  who  breaks  his  neighbor's  inclosure  on 
land. 

Equally  exclusive  is  the  jurisdiction  of  the  sovereign,  over  the  ves- 
sels of  his  subjects  on  the  high  seas ;  and  in  conformity  with  this  prin- 
ciple, all  injuries  committed  on  board  of  a  ship,  in  the  remotest  seas, 
are  supposed  to  be  committed  in  some  county  within  the  territorial  do- 
minions of  the  sovereign,  and  actions  for  the  same  are  triable  only  be- 
fore his  tribunals. 

These  principles  result  from  the  very  nature  of  society,  of  owner- 
ship, and  of  sovereignty.  The  practice,  therefore,  of  stopping  ships  on 
the  ocean,  without  permission  of  the  owners,  searching  them,  and 
taking  out  an  enemy's  goods,  or  turning  them  out  of  their  course,  so 
far  from  being  a  natural  right  of  powers  at  war,  is  a  direct  violation  of 
the  right  of  property  and  of  sovereignty.  It  is  incompatible  with  the 
exclusive  power  of  an  owner  over  his  own  property,  that  a  stranger 
should  exercise  a  qualified  or  temporary  right  over  that  property.  Nor 
can  any  such  right  exist,  unless  derived  from  the  consent  of  the  owner 
or  his  sovereign.  Every  pretense  or  claim  to  a  right  of  search,  being 
a  claim  in  derogation  of  the  exclusive  rights  of  ownership  and  sove- 
reignty, must  be  derived  from  the  assent  of  the  party  whose  rights  are 
abridged,  or  from  usurpation. 

It  is  said  indeed,  that  "  a  nation  at  war  resorts  to  the  law  of  nature 
for  its  own  preservation.  In  war  we  defend  ourselves  by  annoying  our 
enemy,  by  distressing  his  trade,  cramping  his  enterprises,  and  depriving 
him  in  this  way,  also,  of  the  sinews  of  his  warfare  against  us.  Neutrals 
have  a  right  to  trade,  but  not  so  good  a  right  as  nations  at  war  to  de- 
fend themselves ;  for  my  preservation  and  existence  is  more  precious 
than  your  convenience  or  profit." — (Palladium,  No.  10.) 

It  is  not  a  little  strange,  that  in  this  period  of  the  world  men  should 
utter  such  sophistry  ;  but  it  is  more  extraordinary  that  multitudes  of 
men  should  be  misled  by  it.  It  is  not  true  that  the  interruption  of  neu- 
tral trade  ever  disables  a  belligerent  nation,  so  as  to  shorten  the  dura- 
tion of  war.  If  it  was  ever  true  that  one  party  was  reduced,  by  plun- 
der and  ravages,  to  the  condition  of  soliciting  peace,  it  must  have  been 
in  early  ages,  among  small  tribes,  whose  country  might  be  overrun  and 
desolated ;  or  among  nations  who  have,  and  can  have,  no  commerce. 
To  suppose  any  of  the  maritime  states  of  Europe  can  be  deprived  of 
the  means  of  war,  when  it  is  impossible  to  blockade  their  whole  coast. 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  *         97 

much  less  to  arrest  all  intercourse  by  land,  is  the  hight  of  absurdity. 
Examine  the  history  of  any  of  the  wars  of  the  last  century,  and  state 
the  instance  in  which  any  of  those  nations  were  compelled  to  ask  for 
peace,  by  an  interruption  of  supplies.  Not  one  can  be  named.  It  is 
impossible  so  to  guard  an  extensive  coast,  as  to  shut  out  ample  supplies. 
Even  in  the  wars  between  Great  Britain  and  France,  Great  Britain, 
with  a  vast  superiority  on  the  ocean,  has  never  been  able  to  cripple  her 
adversary,  by  an-esting  even  military  and  naval  stores.  She  can  only 
induce  a  temporary  scarcity,  which,  by  enhancing  the  price,  holds  out 
a  temptation  to  adventurers,  which  is  irresistible  and  efficacious.  Be- 
sides, the  more  commerce  a  nation  has,  the  more  vulnerable  is  she  on 
the  ocean,  and  as  it  is  impracticable  to  extend  protection  to  a  navigation 
that  covers  the  ocean,  the  commerce  of  one  nation  becomes  the  source 
from  which  the  other  is  supplied.  Thus,  in  the  present  war,  with  all 
the  vigilance  of  Great  Britain  and  her  interdictions  of  trade,  France 
has  taken  from  her  merchants,  ten  times  the  amount  of  property  which 
the  British  ships  have  taken  from  the  French.  France  is  not  crippled 
for  want  of  military  and  naval  stores,  and  if  she  wanted  ten  times  the 
quantity  of  such  stores,  she  might  obtain  them,  by  means  of  suitable 
encouragement.  France  wants  officers  and  seamen — and  these  she 
can  never  have,  until  by  a  course  of  regulations  steadily  pursued,  she 
shall  become  a  more  commercial  nation. 

But  I  will  take  broader  ground,  to  defend  the  rights  of  neutrality. 
"  Neutrals,"  says  the  writer,  "  have  a  right  to  trade,  but  not  so  good  a 
right  as  nations  at  war  to  defend  themselves."  Here  again  we  are 
assailed  with  a  general  rule,  which,  upon  strict  principle,  can  never  be 
just  unless  when  applied  to  the  injured  party.  When  applied  to  the 
aggressor,  it  must  always  be  false  ;  for  neutrals  have  a  good  right  to 
trade  to  any  part  of  the  world,  but  no  nation  has  a  right  to  attack  its 
neighbor  without  cause.  Much  less  has  the  aggressor  a  right  to  inter- 
rupt the  trade  of  a  nation  at  peace,  under  pretense  of  stopping  supplies 
to  her  enemy ;  for  this  is  to  offer  one  crime  in  excuse  for  another. 

With  regard  to  an  injured  nation,  it  is  true  that  she  has  a  right  to 
deprive  the  aggressor  of  all  the  direct  means  of  annoyance.  I  say 
direct  means  ;  for  provisions,  clothing,  all  the  implements  of  husbandry 
and  manufactures,  every  thing  that  tends  to  preserve  life  or  health,  are 
indirectly  the  means  of  supporting  war.  But  a  remote  possibility  of 
the  application  or  conversion  of  a  commodity  to  the  purposes  of  war, 
will  not  justify  the  interruption  of  the  common  business  of  mankind. 
Other  nations  must  subsist  as  well  as  the  belligerent. 

But  to  determine  the  justice  of  arresting  trade  with  an  aggressing 
nation,  two  things  are  to  be  considered.  First,  the  certainty  that  the 
interruption  of  trade  will  defeat  his  unjust  intentions  ;  and  secondly, 
whether  the  right  of  the  belligerent  nation  to  intercept  the  trade  of  a 
neutral,  is  paramount  to  the  right  of  the  neutral  to  carry  on  such  trade. 
With  respect  to  the  first  consideration,  it  may  be  remarked  in  general, 
that,  in  no  case,  can  the  interdiction  of  trade  essentially  affect  the  gen- 
eral tenor  or  ultimate  issue  of  a  war.  It  is  of  use  only  in  a  case  of 
actual  siege  or  blockade,  in  which  the  right  is  never  questioned. 

The  other  consideration  is  of  difficult  decision.  The  facts  on  which 
it  depends  are  not  always  obvious ;   and  there  is  no  arbitrator  or  com- 

13 


98  •  BIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

mon  rule  established,  by  which  nations  consent  to  be  governed.  Ex- 
treme cases  may  exist,  in  which  all  men  would  readily  acknowledge  a 
rule  of  right.  For  instance,  a  small  nation  hard  pressed  by  a  great 
power,  and  on  the  point  of  losing  its  independence,  would  be  placed 
in  a  situation  resembling  that  of  a  drowning  man,  who,  to  save  himself, 
should  sacrifice  his  comrade's  property  or  even  his  life.  In  such  a 
CEise,  the  oppressed  nation  would  have  a  right  to  resort  to  means  which 
would  be  otherwise  unlawful ;  and  among  these  means,  would  be  the 
interruption  of  supplies  destined  to  the  aggressor,  provided  such  sup- 
plies could  be  directly  applied  to  warlike  purposes.  So  also  on  the 
other  hand,  when  the  parties  at  war  are  great  commercial  powers,  con- 
tending for  distant  possessions,  and  the  independence  of  neither  is  at 
stake,  those  powers  have  no  right  to  interrupt  a  commerce  which  can 
but  remotely  afTect  the  issue  of  the  contest,  but  which  is  essential  to 
the  support  and  comfort  of  a  neutral  nation.  For  instance,  the  com- 
merce of  the  Baltic  nations  consists  very  much  in  naval  stores ;  their 
land  is  barren  and  unproductive ;  and  the  God  of  nature  has  kindly 
supplied  the  soil  whh  timber,  and  the  bowels  of  the  earth  with  iron. 
The  exchange  of  those  commodities  therefore  which  will  not  directly 
support  life,  for  such  as  men  require  for  clothing  and  subsistence,  is 
not  more  clearly  indicated  by  the  necessities  of  the  people,  than  by  the 
original  formation  of  the  countries.  To  alledge  a  right  in  other  nations 
to  arrest  this  exchange  of  their  productions,  so  essential  to  the  support 
and  comfort  of  millions  of  inhabitants,  whenever  such  nations  choose 
to  quarrel  with  each  other,  is  to  yield  principles  to  crimes.  No  law  of 
nations  can  ever  exist,  which  shall  thus  authorize  a  sacrifice  of  the 
great  interests  of  whole  nations  to  the  contentions  of  others,  and  which 
shall  make  the  productions  of  the  barren,  inhospitable  soil  of  the  north, 
the  prey  of  the  richer  nations  of  the  south,  in  whose  disputes  they  have 
no  concern.  Great  Britain  and  France  have  been  at  war,  about  one 
half  of  the  time,  for  five  hundred  years,  probably  much  longer.  To 
establish  a  rule  of  nations,  by  which  the  chief  means  of  subsistence, 
of  wealth  and  strength,  among  whole  nations  of  the  north,  are  to  be 
made  lawful  plunder  one  half  the  time,  is  to  Invert  the  moral  and  social 
system,  to  exalt  the  "  rights  of  war"  over  the  superior  kights  of  hu- 
manity, and  to  contradict  the  plainest  dictates  of  natural  justice.  The 
northern  nations  ought  rather  to  risk  extermination,  than  to  surrender 
the  rights  of  a  free  trade. 

From  these  considerations,  we  see  the  fallacy  of  the  remark,  "  that 
neutrals  have  not  so  good  a  right  to  trade,  as  nations  have  to  defend 
themselves."  Men  are  apt  to  be  misled  by  a  mere  turn  of  expression, 
or  what  is  called  point.  Since  the  days  of  Junius,  nothing  passes  for 
a  good  style,  or  proof  of  genius  in  a  writer,  but  point.  It  is  sometimes 
a  beauty,  but  its  frequent  use  is  the  quackery  of  style,  a  corruption  no 
less  fatal  to  true  taste,  than  to  sound  reasoning.  It  is  one  of  the  wea- 
pons by  which  modern  philosophists  are  attacking  old  and  well  tried 
principles.  It  is  a  species  of  style  which  takes  the  reader  by  surprise, 
and  by  the  fa.scination  of  novelty,  unexpected  antithesis,  or  the  har- 
mony of  words,  entices  his  mind  from  the  dominion  of  reason,  and  en- 
lists  it  into  the  service  of  ima^inaiion. 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  99 

It  is  not  true,*  as  a  general  remark,  that  the  interruption  of  trade  is 
necessary  for  the  defense  of  nations  at  war.  The  instance  does  not 
happen  in  an  age.  It  is  only  a  pretext  used  by  powerful  nations,  to 
cover  their  injustice  and  oppression — a  thin  disguise  indeed,  but  suffi- 
cient to  blind  the  eyes  of  superficial  men,  who  write  before  they  read^ 
and  think  as  they  are  directed  by  their  party,  or  influenced  by  their 
wishes. 

In  general,  the  practice  of  privateering  and  the  interruption  of  neu- 
trals, has  no  apparent  effect  on  war.  It  is  a  game  in  which  the  win- 
nings and  losses  are  nearly  balanced — and  the  nations  are  neither  en- 
riched nor  impoverished,  to  a  degree  that  can  affect  their  resources. 
It  is  a  practice,  however,  immensely  prejudicial  to  nations  at  peace, 
especially  to  those  whose  productions  are  most  useful  in  war.  It  en- 
genders a  hostile,  ferocious  spirit  on  the  ocean,  where  licentiousness  is 
encouraged  by  the  expectation  of  impunity  ;  it  makes  the  property  of 
the  industrious  husbandman  and  merchant,  the  prey  of  the  idle  and 
needy  adventurer  ;  it  alienates  man  from  man  ;  weakens  the  sense  of 
moral  obligation,  and  generates  or  exasperates  national  animosity. 

Men,  who  write  and  prate  about  the  "  rights  of  belligerent  nations," 
seem  to  consider  war  as  the  chief  business  of  man.  Look  into  the 
books  on  the  laws  of  nations,  and  there  see  men  vindicating  the  bar- 
barous maxims  of  savage  tribes,  citing  them  as  the  ground  of  the  jus 
publicum ;  and  treating  of  war  as  a  lawful  trade  or  occupation,  in 
which  nations  may  engage  with  as  little  ceremony,  as  a  company  of 
merchants  may  fit  out  a  ship  to  the  South  Seas.  But  when  men  shall 
cease  to  let  fashion  and  prejudice  guide  their  opinions,  they  will  adopt 
the  sound  principles  of  the  court  of  Denmark,  which,  in  the  declaration 
respecting  the  confederacy  of  the  year  1780,  has  laid  down  the  posi- 
tion, "  That  a  nation,  independent  and  neuter,  does  not  lose  by  the 
wars  of  others,  the  rights  which  she  had  before  the  war,  because  the 
peace  still  exists  between  her  and  all  the  belligerent  powers.  Without 
receiving  or  being  obliged  to  follow  the  laws  of  either  of  them,  she  is 
allowed  to  follow,  in  all  places,  contraband  excepted,  the  traffick  which 
she  would  have  a  right  to  do,  if  peace  existed  with  all  Europe,  as  it 
exists  with  her." 

■  This  is  the  broad  principle  of  natural  and  political  justice,  derived 
from  the  very  constitution  of  independent  societies  and  the  nature  of 
sovereignty.  A  nation  at  war  has  no  right  over  a  nation  at  peace, 
which  it  had  not  before  the  war.  To  suppose  a  belligerent  nation  to 
have  a  right  to  abridge  the  rights  of  a  nation  at  peace,  is  to  admit 
the  principle,  that  a  nation  at  peace  ceases  to  be  an  independent  sove- 
reignty, by  the  single  act  of  the  belligerent — or  that  one  nation  may 
restrain  and  limit  the  rights  of  another  without  its  consent.  It  is  there- 
fore derogatory  to  the  sovereignty  of  a  state,  that  another  power,  by  an 
ex  parte  act,  as  by  a  proclamation  of  war  against  a  third  nation,  should 
be  permitted  to  vary  or  modify  the  rights,  which  such  state  enjoyed 
before  the  proclamation.  And  hence  it  is  that  no  nation  at  war  can 
claim  as  a  natural  right,  or  as  a  lata  of  public  justice,  the  power  of 
abridging  the  trade  of  a  neutral,  acknowledged  to  be  her  right  in  time 
of  peace.  Every  admissible  restriction  of  this  sort  must  be  derived 
from  the  consent  of  the  neutral,  that  is,  from  convention;  and  every 
restriction  not  thus  authorized,  is  usurpation  and  despotism. 


100  EIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

The  principle,  that  the  necessity  of  defense  justifies'a  belligerent  in 
depriving  its  adversary  of  supplies,  has  no  foundation  in  reason  or  law. 
The  rule  is  void  for  uncertainty  ;  for  it  is  not  only  uncertain  when  such 
necessity  exists,  but  no  standard  or  tribunal  exists  by  which  it  can  be 
made  certain.  It  is  a  question  which,  from  the  want  of  a  common 
arbiter,  must  be  left  to  be  decided  by  the  parties  interested  ;  and  we 
know  by  events  that,  in  every  war,  even  for  a  point  of  honor,  or  a  dis- 
tant island,  the  plea  of  necessity  is  pressed  into  the  service  of  the  war- 
ring nations,  to  authorize  depredations  on  peaceable  nations. 

There  is  therefore  no  possible  rule  for  ascertaining  the  rights  of  bel- 
ligerent and  neutral  nations,  but  compact.  This  principle  had,  by  the 
treaties  toward  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  and  in  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  centuries,  become  established  by  the  assent  and  practice  of 
all  the  great  maritime  povvers.  It  was  Great  Britain  principally,  which, 
previous  to  the  year  1793,  violated,  and  endeavored  to  abolish  all  the 
existing  stipulations  on  this  subject,  so  as  to  leave  the  commerce  of 
neutrals  open  to  arbitrary  restriction  and  invasion.  In  1793,  as  we 
have  seen,  all  the  maritime  powers  violated  their  own  principles  in 
their  visionary  project  of  reducing  France  to  terms  of  compliance,  by 
an  entire  interruption  of  trade. 

There  is  another  view  of  this  subject  which  may,  by  some  men,  be 
deemed  too  speculative,  but  which  no  man  of  enlarged  ideas  can  over- 
look or  disregard.  The  very  structure  of  the  globe,  the  distribution  of 
land  and  water,  the  various  climates  and  their  productions,  afford  the 
highest  evidence,  a  priori,  that  the  Creator  intended  men  to  have  a 
free  communication  with  each  other,  and  to  interchange  the  productions 
of  the  several  climates.  Had  the  globe  been  composed  of  earth  only, 
the  transportation  of  heavy  commodities  would  have  been  limited  to 
the  extent  of  a  few  leagues.  Had  the  oceans  encircled  the  globe  from 
east  to  west,  within  certain  parallels  of  latitude,  the  intercourse  between 
the  climates,  by  far  the  most  useful,  would  have  been  prevented.  The 
superfluous  commodities  of  the  torrid  zone,  so  useful  and  convenient 
for  northern  nations,  and  the  produce  of  the  frigid  and  temperate  zones, 
so  necessary  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  tropics,  must  have  perished  with- 
out use  on  their  respective  soils. 

But  the  Creator  of  the  universe  has  not  subjected  man  to  these  incon- 
veniences. Two  oceans  stretch  from  north  to  south,  through  every 
navigable  latitude  ;  enabling  man  to  convey  with  ease  the  produce  of 
the  tropics  to  the  highest  habitable  regions,  and  return  with  the  produc- 
tions of  the  polar  climates.  It  is  this  happy  distribution  of  water,  by 
which  man,  otherwise  confined  for  subsistence  and  comfort  to  a  narrow 
spot  of  earth,  becomes  the  tenant  of  every  climate,  selecting  from  the 
fruits  of  the  whole  earth  whatever  his  appetite  may  crave,  or  his  health 
and  his  comfort  demand.  Nor  is  this  all — the  two  continents,  instead 
of  extending  from  pole  to  pole,  by  which  a  communication  between 
the  different  oceans  would  have  been  obstructed,  run  at  one  end  only 
into  innavigable  regions,  while  on  the  south  they  terminate  in  temperate 
latitudes,  leaving  a  safe  navigation  between  the  Atlantic,  and  the  Indian 
and  Pacific  oceans.  When  to  these  arrangements  we  add  the  inland 
seas,  lakes  and  rivers,  distributed  into  various  parts  of  the  continents, 
almost  superseding  the  use  of  land  carriage ;   when  we  consider  tlie 


^ 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  101 

nature  of  the  elements  destined  for  the  use  of  shipping,  the  heavier 
(water)  to  support,  the  Hghter  (air)  to  impel,  the  floating  vehicles  filled 
with  goods  and  wealth  ;  the  variableness  cf*  winds  intended  to  accom- 
modate voyages  in  diflTerent  directions' ;  tiie  tides  to  supply  the  defect 
of  wind  in  rivers  and  narrow  channels,  and  to  float  the  stranded  ship, 
whose  weight  defies  the  power  af  »nan, — let  vny  pei'sen,  ssrvey  the 
vast  apparatus  and  deny,  if  he  dare,  that  commerce  is  the  business  of 
man,  and  that  it  was  the  original  intention  of  his  benevolent  Creator, 
that  the  wants  of  nations  should  be  supplied,  their  desires  gratified, 
their  interest  advanced,  their  prejudices  softened,  their  afiections  en- 
larged, their  manners  refined,  and  their  knowledge  extended,  by  an 
unlimited  commercial  intercourse.  To  neglect  these  advantages  is  to 
spurn  the  gifts  of  heaven — to  suffer  ourselves  to  be  stripped  of  them,  at 
the  will  or  caprice  of  belligerent  nations,  is  to  forfeit  the  rights  assigned 
to  the  human  race. 

From  the  considerations  therefore  of  the  rights  of  sovereignty,  the 
utility  of  a  free  commerce  to  the  general  welfare  of  mankind,  and  from 
the  obvious  indications  of  the  Author  of  creation  in  the  structure  of  the 
globe,  we  derive  evidence  of  the  most  indisputable  kind,  that  the  inter- 
change of  commodities  between  nations,  is  a  right  of  such  extent  as  to 
claim  universal  respect.  This  right  can  not  be  infringed  for  light,  local 
or  temporary  causes,  without  violence  and  positive  injustice.  Instead 
of  saying  that  "  neutrals  have  not  so  good  a  right  to  trade,  as  nations 
to  defend  themselves,"  the  true  proposition,  grounded  on  fact  and  prin- 
ciple, is,  that  neutrals  have  a  better  right  to  trade,  than  nations  have 
to  fight  and  plunder.  In  the  first  proposition,  the  premises  are  assumed, 
and  contrary  to  fact — the  defense  and  preservation  of  a  state  rarely, 
if  ever,  depend  on  the  interruption  of  trade,  and  in  the  present  condi- 
tion of  the  world,  the  event  must  be  so  infrequent,  that  to  establish  a 
law  on  the  necessity  of  such  defense,  would  be  to  make  the  exception 
the  basis  of  the  general  rule.  The  general  principles  are,  that  nations 
have  a  sovereign  right  to  direct  and  control  their  own  trade — that  one 
sovereign  has  no  right  to  disturb  a  neighboring  state  in  the  exercise  of 
this  right,  toward  a  third  power — that  commerce  is  the  common  con- 
cern of  mankind,  in  which  the  subsistence,  welfare  and  prosperity  of 
every  nation  is  involved — that  the  interest  of  a  particular  nation  is  an 
inferior  consideration,  which  ought  not  to  suspend  or  defeat  the  com- 
mon occupation  of  mankind — much  less  ought  a  particular  sovereign 
to  exalt  his  own  rights  in  war,  over  the  general  rights  of  humanity — 
and  finally,  it  is  incompatible  with  every  idea  of  right  or  justice,  to 
suffer  a  sovereign  to  hold  the  exclusive  power  of  deciding  when  his 
rights  may  supersede  the  common  rights  of  other  states ;  or  in  other 
words,  to  make  the  case  and  apply  the  rule  himself. 

The  writer  before  cited  remarks,  "  that  it  is  not  probably  for  the 
interest  of  humanity,  to  change  the  old  law  of  nations."  The  reason 
assigned  is,  that  the  distresses  of  war,  if  not  restrained,  will  make  the 
miserable  people  clamor  for  peace,  and  thus  shorten  the  duration  of 
war. 

What  shall  we  say  to  the  refinement  of  modern  days,  when  we  be- 
hold the  champions  of  free  plunder  stalk  forth,  and  openly  contend  for 
the  policy  and  even  humanity  of  robbing  nations  at  peace,  for  the  good 


A<4 


lOS  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

of  nations  at  war  ?  It  is  not  sufficient  for  the  subjects  of  the  belligerent 
powers,  to  feel  the  inevitable  distresses  of  war,  and  often  for  no  good 
cause,  but  to 'gratify  the  ambitroil  of  a  prince  or  of  revolutionary  fanat- 
ics ;  but  we  mast  consent  tb'^iifier  these  powers  to  spread  the  havoc 
among  those  who.  havt-  no  concern  in  the  contest !  All  trading  nations 
must  surrendpf  i.heir  indepf-ndi^rte**,  and  neutral  merchants  their  prop- 
erty, for  the  benefit  of  the  belligerent  nations  ;  who  are  thus  to  play  the 
tyrant,  for  the  sake  of  shortening  the  duration  of  their  tyranny  I  Ar- 
guments like  these  are  very  proper  for  the  "  small  dealers"  in  public 
law.  Subjects  never  clamor  government  into  peace,  for  want  of  means 
to  continue  the  war,  until  success  becomes  hopeless. 

The  writer  proceeds — "  Experience  affords  no  ground  to  think  that 
this  pretended  modern  law  of  nations,  would  operate  in  favor  of  Amer- 
ica. In  a  ^ew  years,  she  might  be  powerful  at  sea,  and  then  it  would 
be  against  her  interest."  How  against  her  interest  ?  By  no  other  con- 
ceivable way,  than  by  leaving  neutral  commerce  open  to  be  plundered 
by  our  ships,  when  we  may  be  at  war.  God  forbid  that  the  United 
States  should  ever  want,  the  means,  or  possess  the  moral  power  to  ex- 
ercise this  license  against  neutrals.  Let  them  have  naval  strength  to 
defend  their  own  rights,  but  not  to  impair  those  of  other  powers.  It  is 
easy  to  make  general  assertions,  and  readers  are  too  apt  to  mistake  an 
air  of  confidence  for  sound  argument.  The  fact  is,  that  the  rule  of 
"  free  ships  make  free  goods,"  always  operates  in  favor  of  nations  at 
peace,  whether  strong  or  weak ;  and  for  this  reason,  the  United  States, 
which  loill  or  may  be  always  at  peace,  during  the  wars  of  Europe,  have 
an  immense  interest  in  maintaining  the  rule. 

But,  says  the  writer,  "  A  regulation  so  repugnant  to  the  very  nature 
of  war,  and  the  established  mode  of  carrying  it  on,  would  be  observed 
with  reluctance  by  the  weakest  [weaker]  nation,  and  not  at  all  by  the 
stronger.  The  weaker  would  plead  the  example  of  England  in  seizing 
French  goods  on  board  of  American  ships,  as  an  excuse  for  seizing 
English  goods  in  American  ships.  France  has  done  this."  True,  and 
this  is  the  strongest  of  all  reasons  why  we  should  not  concede  to  anij 
nation,  the  right  of  seizing  enemy's  property  in  our  ships.  Is  it  not  a 
most  extraordinary,  not  to  say  insulting,  species  of  sophistry,  to  alledge 
that  one  nation  will  not  accede  to  a  rule  of  justice,  and  therefore  we 
ought  to  surrender  it  ?  It  was  a  rule  of  nations  in  war,  to  put  to  death 
prisoners,  to  sell  them,  to  mutilate  them — so  it  was  to  seize  travelers 
and  merchants  in  a  foreign  country,  even  in  peace,  and  make  them  pay 
enormous  sums  for  their  ransom — but  would  any  man  say,  that  if  a 
great  power  will  continue  to  exercise  such  barbarity,  therefore  all  states 
ought  to  adhere  to  the  practice,  and  establish  it  as  a  law  of  nations  .'' 
Let  us,  for  mercy's  sake,  defend  the  principle,  though  we  may  not  be 
able  to  enforce  the  practice,  of  public  justice. 

It  is  true,  that  if  one  nation  will  continue  the  practice  of  barbarians 
in  war,  her  enemies  will  resort  to  the  same  means.  And  this  is  just ; 
for  retaliation  is  the  only  effectual  weapon  to  punish  the  injustice  of  the 
oppressor.  France  was  perfectly  right  in  regard  to  Great  Britain,  in 
adopting  the  rule  toward  neutrals  which  Great  Britain  had  followed — 
all  nations  in  war  must  do  the  same  ;  and  this  is  one  of  the  most  urgent 
reasons,  why  no  nation  should  abandon  the  principles  of  free  trade  ; 


RIGHTS    OF   NEUTRALS.  103 

for  every  instance  of  concession  fortifies  the  claim  of  the  refractory, 
overbearing  nation — it  yields  to  an  enemy,  ground  which  is  not  easily 
recovered  ;  and  every  siep,  in  retreating  from  the  principles  of  the 
northern  confederacy,  is  an  advance  toward  ancient  piracy  and  bar- 
barism. 

It  is  extremely  important  that  the  cfuestion  should  be  settled,  whether 
the  claims  of  Great  Britain,  or  of  all  Europe  combined  against  her, 
shall  be  admitted  as  the  established  law  of  nations.  We  are  accus- 
tomed to  hear  most  outrageous  clamor  against  the  French  depredations 
on  our  trade  ;  but  let  it  be  recollected,  that  every  decree  of  the  French 
government,  authorizing  the  seizure  of  neutrals,  was  posterior  to  and  in 
consequence  of,  the  orders  of  the  British  cabinet,  for  the  same  purpose. 
The  Spaniards  are  pursuing  a  similar  practice,  and  with  a  few  priva- 
teers pretend  to  blockade  Gibraltar.  These  proceedings  are  in  the  na- 
ture of  reprisals  on  Great  Britain,  and  on  the  neutrals  who  countenance 
her  arbitrary  interruption  of  their  trade.  Every  nation  at  war  will 
adopt  the  like  measures — the  ocean  will  again  become  the  "  field  of 
pirates,"  and  peace  will  be  expelled  from  the  earth  ;  for  even  nations 
disposed  to  be  neutral,  must  become  parties  to  every  war  in  their  own 
defense. 

In  the  present  state  of  things,  treaties,  always  regarded  with  too  little 
respect,  are  losing  their  efticacy  ;  and  from  the  inequality  of  their 
operation,  will  become  a  dead  letter.  France,  in  her  treaty  with  the 
llnited  States,  in  1778,  stipulated  that  free  ships  should  make  free 
goods — so  that  in  her  war  with  Great  Britain,  British  goods  were  pro- 
tected by  the  American  flag.  Great  Britain  would  not  consent  to  such 
a  stipulation — of  course,  French  goods  in  American  ships  were  not 
protected.  Will  nations  observe  treaties  in  which  advantages  are  not 
reciprocal  ?     And  who  can  blame  them  if  they  will  not .'' 

So  by  the  British  treaty  with  Russia,  in  1766,  and  by  that  of  1601, 
naval  stores  are  not  contraband  ;  but  by  our  treaty  with  Great  Britain, 
naval  stores  are  contraband — of  course,  Russia  can  supply  the  enemy 
of  Great  Britain  with  naval  stores,  and  the  United  States  can  not. 
How  is  it  possible  that  treaties,  with  such  unequal  conditions,  can  be 
observed  ?  For  Russia  to  consent  to  make  her  staple  commodities 
contraband,  would  be  treason  against  her  subjects  and  the  intentions  of 
heaven ;  and  although  the  productions  of  the  United  States  are  more 
various,  yet  some  of  these  productions  are  necessary  in  war ;  and  it  is 
the  interest  and  the  duty  of  our  government  never  to  consent  to  enlarge 
the  usual  list  of  prohibited  goods. 

A  writer  in  the  Palladium,  with  the  signature  of  Americanus,  has 
attempted,  in  a  series  of  papers,  beginning  April  21,  1801,  to  maintain 
the  impolicy  of  establishing  the  principles  of  the  northern  confederacy. 
In  the  very  threshold  of  his  essay,  he  lets  us  know  that  he  is  a  party 
man,  and  intends  to  treat  the  subject  on  party  principles.  He  fells  us 
a  work  has  been  written  at  Paris,  to  exhibit  the  policy  of  France  to- 
ward other  nations ;  and  that  a  copious  extract  from  it,  relative  to  mar- 
itime commerce,  has  appeared  in  the  European  journals,  which  makes 
it  evident,  that  the  northern  league  is  entirely  a  French  project,  to  unite 
all  nations  against  the  English,  who  alone  can  obstruct  France  in  her 
designs  to  establish  unrivaled  power.  .,    .,,.^..  ... 


104  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTEALS. 

To  a  man  who  reads  none  but  English  publications,  and  who  will 
give  more  credit  to  them  than  to  the  official  declarations  of  the  powers 
of  the  north,  the  confederacy  may  be  made  to  appear  a  "  French  pro- 
ject." The  writer  certainly  allows  a  very  small  portion  of  wisdom  and 
discernment  to  the  courts  of  the  Baltic  nations,  when  he  charges  them 
with  being  persuaded  by  the  French,  to  hazard  a  rupture  with  Great 
Britain.  A  little  reading,  with  impartial  views,  and  a  careful  examina- 
tion of  facts,  connected  with  the  nature  of  the  Baltic  commerce,  will 
convince  any  man  that  the  confederacy  was  dictated  by  the  necessity 
of  maintaining  the  old  principles  of  free  trade,  against  the  alarming 
claims  and  encroachments  of  Great  Britain.  France  is  certainly  very- 
busy  in  aiding  the  project ;  but  the  league  originated  in  sound  princi- 
ples of  neutral  policy,  in  which  the  Baltic  trade  is  particularly  con- 
cerned ;  and  if  the  northern  powers  can  not  compel  Great  Britain  to 
renounce  her  claims,  and  restore  those  old  principles,  they  may  surren- 
der their  independence  at  once,  and  become  colonies  of  the  British 
empire. 

The  practice  of  interweaving  party  views  and  temporary  exigencies 
into  the  discussion  of  eveiy  question  of  general  policy  and  the  laws  of 
nations,  misleads  men  of  the  purest  intentions.  When  reason  enlists 
under  the  standard  of  wishes  and  prejudices,  it  is  as  likely  to  defend 
error  as  truth.  Great  Britain  and  France  are  the  champions  of  the 
day  ;  and  every  spectator  of  the  contest  wishes  his  favorite  to  use  the 
means  that  will  give  him  the  victory. 

Reason,  impartiality,  and  general  views,  reject  a  decision  formed  on 
such  a  narrow  basis.  The  interruption  of  a  free  trade  and  the  claims 
of  Great  Britain,  are  not  at  all  essential  to  her  existence,  as  I  have  al- 
ready obser\^ed  ;  but  if  they  were,  the  case  would  be  an  exception  from 
ordinary  events,  and  therefore  not  the  foundation  of  a  general  rule. 
To  reason  from  particulars  to  generals  is  always  bad  logic,  and  espe- 
cially in  a  case  in  which  the  common  welfare  of  nations  is  concerned. 

Americanus  offers  a  few  remarks  on  the  progress  and  termination  of 
the  armed  neutrality  of  1780,  but  has  not  given  a  correct  view  of  the 
origin  and  principles  of  that  confederacy.  His  sarcastic  remarks  on 
the  concern  which  the  French  seem  to  have  for  the  rights  of  neutrals, 
are  wholly  irrelevant  to  the  question.  No  man  believes  either  France 
or  Great  Britain  has  any  concern  for  principles  or  the  rights  of  other 
nations,  when  they  interfere  with  their  supposed  interests.  I  lay  out  of 
the  discussion  all  such  extraneous  considerations. 

But  the  reasoning  and  assertions  of  Americanus,  regarding  the  opera- 
tion of  the  rule  of  free  ships  make  free  goods,  on  the  commerce  of  neu- 
trals in  time  of  war,  deserve  examination.  The  first  effect  noticed  is, 
that  neutrals  would  lose  the  benefit  of  their  neutrality,  by  transfers  of 
the  ships  of  belligerent  nations  to  the  citizens  of  neutral  states.  The 
only  answer  to  this  objection  to  the  rule  which  it  is  necessary  to  make 
is,  that  either  party  might  prevent  this  fraud — the  neutral  state  would 
restrain  the  practice,  for  her  own  benefit,  if  the  practice  should  operate 
against  her ;  and  the  belligerent  might,  and  justly,  consider  an  open 
countenance  given  to  it  as  a  hostile  act,  associating  the  party  with  her 
enemy.  We  may  leave  the  management  of  that  business  to  the  neu- 
tral  nation  or  to  individuals,  who  would  not  reduce  their  own  profits,  as 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  105 

Americafilis  supposes,' by  encouraging  fictitious  sales.  If  neutral  flags 
should  be  hoisted  on  board  of  ships  belonging  to  belligerent  nations,  an 
j^xamination  would  detect  the  fraud,  and  the  ship  would  be  seized.  No 
regulations  can  elude  the  ingenuity  of  men,  when  exerted  to  secure 
their  property  ;  but  no  fraud  is  more  easily  detected  than  that  of  carry- 
ing false  colors.  For  more  than  a  century  most  of  the  maritime  powers 
have  traded  under  their  old  law  of  free  ships  free  goods,  and  without 
great  inconvenience  from  the  stratagems  of ,  false  colors  and  fictitious 
■•transfers. 

"  But,"  says  Americanus,  "  admit  that  this  obstacle  could  be  sur- 
mounted, and  neutral  vessels  could  protect  property,  this  would  be  a 
benefit  to  the  belligerent  nations  only,  for  neutral  property  is  now  as 
safe  as  laws  can  make  it ;  and  if  the  property  belongs  to  powers  at 
war,  the  neutral  is  only  the  carrier,  whose  profit  is  a  mere  pittance. 
The  neutral  may  now  carry  the  goods  of  nations  at  war,  subject  indeed 
to  be  seized,  [detained,  conducted  into  port,  harassed  with  admiralty 
proceedings,  &c.]  yet  he  is  entitled  to  his  freight.  But  if  he  owns  the 
goods  he  can  not  be  interrupted.  This  will  operate  as  an  inducement 
to  purchase.,  instead  of  taking /m^/t^,  and  the  profits  of  purchasing  and 
selling  are  as  much  greater  than  those  of  freighting,  as  the  gains  of  the 
Cornhill  shopkeepers  in  Boston  exceed  those  of  their  truckmen  and 
porters." 

In  this  train  of  reasoning,  there  is  no  small  degree  of  fascination. 
In  no  way  can  we  so  easily  reconcile  a  merchant  to  have  his  ships  de- 
tained, vexed,  and  plundered,  as  to  convince  him  that  he  makes  a  great 
profit  by  it. 

If  it  was  true,  that  to  be  purchasers  rather  than  freighters,  is  highly 
advantageous  to  neutrals,  it  would  still  be  hard  to  compel  them  to  pur- 
chase, whether  they  are  able  and  willing  or  not.  This  kind  of  com- 
pulsion  would  bear  no  small  resemblance  to  that  of  French  republicans, 
who  generously  ofl^er  to  force  nations  to  be  free.  But  Americanus  is 
as  much  mistaken  in  fact  as  in  principle.  Every  merchant  can  inform 
the  gentleman,  that  in  all  wars  the  freighting  business  is  among  the 
most  profitable  branches,  as  it  is  certainly  the  safest.  The  very  great 
gains  which  he  supposes  our  merchants  have  made  in  the  present  war, 
are,  in  a  large  proportion,  derived  from  that  source.  The  immense 
failures  of  the  last  six  years  have  not  been  among  carriers,  but  among 
purchasers. 

In  plain  truth,  it  would  be  hest,  as  it  is  the  oiAy  just  proceeding,  to 
protect  the  property,  whether  owned  by  the  neutral  or  the  belligerent ; 
the  merchant  would  then  purchase  goods,  when  he  had  capital  or  could 
find  a  market ;  or  in  failure  of  these,  he  might  take  goods  on  freight. 
Such  is  the  slate  of  the  question  as  it  regards  the  merchant. 

The  administration  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  the  old  Congress, 
have  always  considered  the  principles  of  the  northern  powers  as  highly 
valuable  to  this  country.  The  Secretary  of  State,  in  his  long  and  able 
letter  to  Mr.  Pinckney,  when  in  France,  dated  Jan.  16,  1797,  speaking 
of  the  ill  success  of  the  armed  neutrality,  says,  "  this,  no  nation  has 
more  reason  to  regret  than  our  own,  as  well  because  the  principles  in 
question  respect  some  very  valuable  portions  of  our  exports,  as  because 
our  dispositions  and  our  policy,  preserving  us  m  peace,  such  an  extend- 


106  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

ed  liberty  of  commerce  would  prove  highly  advantageous  to  us,  as 
carriers  tor  the  powers  at  war." 

Americanus,  having  by  a  strain  of  sophistry  arrived  at  the  conclusion 
that  the  principle  oi  free  ships,  free  goods,  if  established,  would  "  de- 
prive neutrals  of  great  advantages  which  they  now  enjoy" — a  conclu- 
sion which  he  seems  to  think  very  obvious,  but  which  all  the  wise  heads 
of  the  confederated  powers  of  Europe  have  not  been  able  to  see  or 
understand — proceeds  to  make  a  remark  which  others  have  made,  that 
it  would  be  advantageous  to  inferior  states  only,  and  that  the  most  pow- 
erful would  oppose  it,  and  always  with  success.  To  a  man  who  be- 
lieves that  right  and  power  are  the  same  thing  in  principle,  as  Great 
Britain  and  France,  at  war,  make  them  in  fact,  this  kind  of  reasoning 
may  pass  for  logic.  If  all  contention  for  justice  and  national  sove- 
reignty is  in  vain,  let  small  states,  like  the  unresisting  lamb  under  the 
hands  of  the  shearer,  consent  to  lie  quiet  and  he  fleeced  without  a  mur- 
mur. Let  the  nations  at  war  be  the  sole  judges  of  what  is  the  law  of 
nations,  and  when  to  apply  it ;  and  let  the  ultima  ratio  regum  be  the 
sole  instrument  of  execution.  With  men  who  can  coolly  and  delibe- 
rately advocate  such  principles,  argument  is  useless. 

Americanus,  near  the  close  of  his  essay,  recapitulates  the  stale  reason 
employed  to  justify  an  interdiction  of  trade  with  belligerents — the  ne- 
cessity and  justice  of  disabling  an  enemy,  by  taking  from  him  the 
means  of  prosecuting  the  war  ;  suggesting  that  the  seizure  of  property 
on  the  seas  is  the  least  cruel,  least  offensive,  and  least  odious  method 
of  effectually  accomplishing  this  purpose. 

The  remarks  in  the  preceding  pages  show,  that  in  most  cases  this 
method  has  not  the  least  effect.  With  respect  to  great  maritime  nations, 
with  extensive  coasts,  numerous  harbors,  and  a  free  intercourse  with 
neutral  nations  by  land,  seizures  on  the  ocean  can  never  be  effectual  to 
disable  or  even  to  distress  an  enemy.  If  the  experience  of  nations  in 
the  wars  of  the  last  fifty  years  does  not  convince  men  of  information 
and  reflection  of  that  fact,  they  must  be  a  prey  to  their  own  blindness. 
The  captures  of  vessels  by  Great  Britain  and  France,  never  shortened 
the  wars  between  them  a  single  week.  If  the  reason  alledged  can 
ever  be  true,  it  must  be  in  cases  like  the  league  of  Cambray  against 
Venice,  when  most  or  all  the  surrounding  nations  combine  and  invest  a 
small  state  with  enemies.  And  in  such  cases,  the  great  powers  being 
usually  the  aggressors,  the  interdiction  of  trade  to  the  place,  is  to  double 
the  crime  by  robbing  one  innocent  nation  to  injure  another,  and  to  aid 
the  oppressor  in  subduing  the  oppressed. 

But  were  it  true  that  such  maritime  seizures  could  abridge  the  duration 
or  lessen  the  calamities  of  war,  still,  such  seizures  of  neutral  property, 
being  direct  infractions  of  natural  right,  and  encroachments  on  the 
sovereignty  of  nations,  can  never  be  lawfully  exercised  but  in  pursu- 
ance of  special  conventions.  The  .  right  to  carry  on  ordinary  trade, 
even  in  implements  of  war,  that  is,  such  trade  as  is  ■usually  carried  on 
in  time  of  peace,  can  never  be  lawfully  restrained  by  powers  at  war, 
unless  authorized  by  treaty.  The  right  to  carry  on  such  a  trade  is  a 
natural  right,  resulting  from  the  constitution  of  society,  and  the  nature 
of  sovereignty  ;  and  is  therefore  paramount  to  any  right  incident  to  a 
state  of  war,  which  must  be  accidental,  temporary,  fluctuating,  arbi- 


RIGHTS   OF   NEUTRALS.  107 

trary,  local,  and  consequently  subordinate  to  the  general  and  perma- 
nent rights  of  nations. 

Americanus  says  that  such  seizures  "  violate  no  neutral  territory." 
This  assertion  must  proceed  from  want  of  reflection,  or  from  the  habit 
of  considering  ships  at  sea  as  a  species  of  imperfect  property.  Reason 
condemns  the  distinction  between  a  right  to  property  on  sea  and  on 
land.  The  right  of  an  owner  to  his  ship  on  the  ocean,  and  of  his  sove- 
reign to  his  jurisdiction  over  it,  is  in  fact  as  complete  and  as  exclusive, 
as  the  right  of  an  owner  to  his  house,  and  of  his  sovereign  to  the  juris- 
diction over  it,  on  neutral  territory.  In  strict  principle,  a  belligerent 
has  no  more  right  to  step  his  foot  upon  the  deck  of  a  neutral  ship  and 
take  out  his  enemy's  goods,  than  he  has  to  enter  the  territory  and  the 
house  of  a  neutral  and  plunder  it  of  his  enemy's  property.  The  only 
difference  is  in  the  habits  of  thinking,  derived  from  the  maxims  of  war- 
ring nations,  which  have  been  traced  to  the  barbarous  customs  of  an- 
tiquity. It  is  time  to  discard  maxims,  established  when  power  was  the 
only  measure  of  right ;  for  venerable  as  may  be  deemed  the  laios  of 
plunder^  from  their  early  origin  and  long  continuance,  yet  their  authors 
were  savages^  and  their  supporters  have  been  tyrants. 

Americanus  closes  his  essay  by  very  just  strictures  on  the  pretense 
of  the  French  to  public  morality  and  natural  justice.  It  is  true,  that 
such  remarks  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject  under  discussion.  If 
the  French  happen,  for  once,  to  be  right,  this  is  no  reason  why  those 
who  hate  them,  should  be  wrong. 

"  So  much  they  scorn  the  crowd,  that  if  the  tlirong 
By  chance  go  right,  they  purposely  go  wrong." 

But  there  is  one  view  of  the  subject  before  us,  which  is  as  interesting, 
as  it  is  just.  The  French  revolutionists  avow  and  pursue  principles  in- 
compatible with  the  rights,  the  independence  and  the  peace  of  other  na- 
tions. They  have  attempted  to  undermine  the  allegiance  of  men  to 
their  sovereigns  ;  they  have  solicited  subjects  to  revolt,  and  have  oflTer- 
ed  them  their  assistance. 

They  have  attacked  the  foundation  of  civil  society,  by  endeavoring 
to  root  out  from  the  human  heart,  all  belief  in  revelation  and  in  the 
moral  government  of  a  Supreme  Being ;  and  by  weakening  the  influ- 
ence of  oaths  and  moral  obligation.  They  have  gone  further ;  they 
have  attempted,  as  they  call  it,  to  "conquer  nations  into  liberty"  ;  as- 
suming the  right  to  destroy,  modify  and  control  their  internal  govern- 
ment. They  have  raised  the  nation  in  arms,  to  enforce  these  preten- 
sions, conquering  small  states,  annexing  some  of  them  to  their  own  ter- 
ritory ;  placing  garrisons  in  others,  which  subsist  on  the  vanquished  in- 
habitants and  eat  out  their  substance,  under  pretext  of  making  them  free; 
erecting  in  others  new  forms  of  government,  presented  by  themselves, 
and  laying  enormous  contributions  upon  every  country  which  their  ar- 
mies have  penetrated.  What  will  be  the  issue  of  these  pretensions  and 
proceedings,  on  the  moral  and  political  condition  of  man,  God  only 
knows. 

But  while  I  dread,  as  much  as  I  abhor,  these  novel,  tyrannical  and 
formidable  claims  of  the  French,  to  intermeddle  with  the  concerns,  vio- 
late the  rights,  and  invade  the  independence  of  nations,  I  can  not  see, 


<|r 


108  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTEALS. 

with  silent  tranquillity,  the  equally  unjust  and  tyrannical  aggressions  of 
Great  Britain,  on  the  commerce  of  neutral  powers.  I  consider  her 
claims  to  interdict  all  commerce  with  her  enemies,  or  such  part  of  it  as 
she  deems  expedient,  on  pretense  of  necessity^  of  the  existence  and  de- 
gree of  which  she  is  the  sole  judge  ;  as  unwarrantable  as  the  pretensions 
of  France,  to  molest  the  states  around  her,  under  pretense  of  giving 
them  freedom.  If  a  difference  exists  in  the  two  cases,  it  is  in  degree  and 
not  in  principle.  Each  of  those  great  powers  makes  the  unjust  preten- 
sions of  the  other  the  pretext  for  maintaining  its  own,  and  if  neither 
party  will  recede  from  its  claims,  the  war  must  be  interminable,  and 
suspended  only  by  treaties  of  short  duration.  Unfortunately,  the  claims 
of  Great  Britain  interfere  more  directly  with  the  interests  of  the  northern 
powers,  than  those  of  France.  Great  Britain  directly  abiidges  their 
commerce  ;  France  docs  not  directly  attack  their  independence.  The 
consequence  is,  the  northern  powers  are  under  strong  inducements  to 
combine  with  France,  to  check  the  power  of  Great  Britain.  France 
avails  herself  of  this  commercial  interest,  to  strengthen  her  own  power, 
and  divert  the  northern  courts  from  any  combination  to  arrest  her  pro- 
gres's  in  revolutionizing  the  contiguous  parts  of  Europe.  France  at- 
tacks the  rights  of  nations  on  land ;  Great  Britain  on  the  ocean  ;  while 
the  Americans  permit  their  wishes  to  enlist  on  one  side  or  the  other,  as 
they  are  prompted  by  new  prejudices,  or  old  attachments.  To  wish  that 
France  may  be  restrained  in  her  career,  is  the  dictate  of  morality,  of 
justice,  and  humanity.  But  to  abandon  the  most  essential  rights  of  na- 
tions on  the  ocean,  were  it  necessary  to  restrain  France  on  land,  would 
be  a  sacrifice  without  an  equivalent ;  it  would  be  to  prefer  the  particu- 
lar interest,  to  the  general ;  the  local,  to  the  universal.  When,  however, 
it  is  considered,  that  the  invasion  of  neutral  rights  can  not  possibly  aflect 
the  issue  of  the  contest,  no  good  man  can  wish  to  see  the  claims  of 
Great  Britain  recognized  as  the  law  of  nations.  For  Americans  who 
are  affected  by  the  contest,  through  the  medium  of  their  commerce,  to 
surrender  the  rights  of  a  free  trade,  and  defend  the  policy  of  Great  Brit- 
ain, is  not  only  to  consent  to  a  prostitution  of  their  independence,  but 
to  become  the  panders  of  the  crime. 

The  great  question  of  the  general  rights  of  commerce  ought  not  to  be 
decided  by  present  exigencies.  But  since  these  are  dragged  into  the 
discussion,  by  the  advocates  of  the  claims  of  Great  Britain,  it  may  not 
be  improper  to  remark,  that  while  any  power  openly  maintains  the  right 
to  interdict  the  trade  of  neutrals,  as  she  may  judge  time  and  circumstan- 
ces render  expedient,  that  power  must  naturally  have  all  commercial 
nations  for  her  enemies.  It  is  not  simply  the  right  of  seizing  enemy's 
property  in  neutral  ships,  and  of  searching  them  at  pleasure,  which  is 
claimed  by  Great  Britain  ;  but  she  undisguisedly  maintains  her  right  to 
interrupt  all  trade  with  her  enemy,  when  she  may  judge  that  such  a 
measure  will  reduce  her  enemy  to  terms  of  accommodation.  She  ex- 
tends also  her  right  to  declare  a  place  blockaded,  and  to  intercept  the 
colonial  trade  of  an  enemy,  as  well  as  the  produce  of  an  enemy's  coun- 
try, to  a  degree  that  subjects  the  commerce  of  all  nations  to  interruption 
and  plunder.  And  to  crown  this  insulting  system  of  maritime  domina- 
tion, she  absolutely  prohibits  neutrals  to  trade  with  her  enemy's  ports 
which  she  pretends  to  blockade,  while  her  own  ships  are  licensed  to 


RIGHTS   OF   NEUTRALS.  109 

trade  with  these  very  ports.  Instead  of  blocking  up  ports  to  disable  her 
enemy,  she  now  declares  them  besieged,  for  the  purpose  of  excluding 
neutrals,  and  giving  the  whole  trade  to  her  own  subjects.*  Such  are 
consequences  of  the  rights  claimed  and  asserted  by  Great  Britain,  and 
such  are  the  claims  which  Americans  unblushingly  defend  ! 

Is  it  possible  that  such  a  nation  sliould  not  be  perpetually  embroiled 
with  her  neighbors  ?  Can  maritime  powers  be  her  friends  ?  If  nations 
must  submit  to  the  lawless  domination  of  one  of  the  great  rival  powers, 
they  ought  at  least  to  have  the  privilege  of  choosing  their  master. 

The  northern  states  of  Europe  are  not  and  can  not  be  the  rivals  of 
Great  Britain  on  the  ocean.  No  nations  are  more  intimately  connected 
by  reciprocal  wants.  It  is  the  policy  therefore  of  Great  Britain  to  cul- 
tivate the  good  will  of  all  the  Baltic  powers.  Yet  she  seems  to  pursue 
a  directly  different  policy ;  she  takes  incredible  pains  to  alienate  the 
friendship  of  nations,  on  which  she  depends  principally  for  naval  stores. 
She  seems  to  think  it  better  to  sacrifice  their  friendship  and  hazard  their 
enmity,  than  yield  to  them  the  most  indubitable  rights.  Whatever  the 
narrow  views  of  the  moment  may  suggest,  on  the  great  scale  of  Euro- 
pean politics.  Great  Britain  loses  more  than  she  gains  by  her  imperious 
demands.  She  throws  the  northern  powers  into  the  iriterests  of  France  ; 
she  makes  all  commercial  nations  her  enemies ;  she  fosters  enmities 
which  would  otherwise  subside,  and  protracts  every  war  in  which  she  is 
engaged.  To  recede  from  her  unreasonable  claims,  and  permit  inferior 
powers  to  enjoy  their  natural  rights,  would  conciliate  those  powers,  de- 
tach them  from  the  interest  of  her  inveterate  enemy  and  rivals  and  by 
enabling  them  to  supply  her  navy  at  all  times  with  stores,  and  multiply- 
ing her  markets,  she  would  augment  her  own  strength,  while  she  would 
reduce  the  number  and  animosity  of  her  enemies. 

But  whatever  measures  the  court  of  Great  Britain  may  pursue,  the 
interest  of  all  other  nations  points  to  their  duty ;  they  must  defend  their 
rights ;  and  though  compelled,  for  a  time,  to  yield  to  the  power,  they  Hp^f 
must  inflexibly  resist  the  claims  of  Great  Britain.  The  same  is  the  du- 
ty of  the  nations  adjacent  to  France.  Depressed,  for  the  moment,  by 
the  weight  of  her  arms,  submission  is  a  duty  ;  but  time  can  never  sanc- 
tion her  injustice,  nor  prescription  give  validity  to  her  claims.  Her 
principles  are  treason  against  civil  society  and  national  sovereignty  ;  to 
admit  their  validity,  is  to  become  a  partner  in  her  guilt,  and  the  com 
mon  enemy  of  man. 

Every  friend  of  the  rights  and  the  peace  of  mankind,  must  acknow- 
ledge the  services  which  Great  Britain  has  rendered  to  Europe,  by  the 
firm  and  successful  opposition  she  has  presented  to  the  extension  of  the 
power  of  France.  But  it  is  a  fatal  rhistake  to  suppose  that  her  depre- 
dations on  neutral  commerce  are  necessary  to  that  opposition.  The  "j 
fact  is  directly  the  reverse,  and  her  inadmissible  claims  weaken  her 
comparative  force,  by  increasing  that  of  her  enemy. 

Her  attempt  to  cut  off  all  supplies  to  France,  in  conjunction  with  oth- 
er powers,  in  1793,  and  especially  her  secret  order  of  November  6th, 
for  seizing  the  defenseless  trade  of  the  United  States,  nearly  completed 

*  See  tliR  letter  of  the  Hon.  Riifiis  King,  American  minister  at  the  court  of  Great 
Britain,  to  Lord  lliiwlisbury,  M.in.li  ID,  1801. 


ltd  RIGHTS    OF    NETTTKALS. 

what  an  insidious  French  minister  had  begun — in  driving  the  United 
States  into  the  clutches  of  France.  These  unwarrantable  orders  renew- 
ed irritations  which  had  subsided,  and  which  it  should  have  been  the 
policy  of  Great  Britain  to  moderate  and  allay.  They  were  the  very 
pretexts  which  the  enemies  of  England  desired,  to  justify  all  the  preda- 
tory schemes  of  France.  That  France  was  bound  by  treaty  not  to 
plunder  American  .ships,  while  England  was  not  thus  bound,  was  logic 
not  suited  to  convince  the  government  of  France,  or  its  friends  in  this 
country.  Great  Britain  began  to  practice  upon  her  law  of  •  nations ; 
France  found  "  nothing  but  disadvantage"  in  her  treaty ;  renounced  its 
obligations ;  let  loose  her  privateers ;  and  the  lion  and  the  tiger,  while 
fighting  with  each  other,  united  in  devouring  our  unprotected  commerce. 
Great  Britain,  it  is  alledged,  has  paid  a  little,  and  promised  to  pay  more, 
by  way  of  indemnification.  But  there  is  little  in  this  to  heal  the  wounds 
inflicted  on  our  rights.  If  a  man  horsewhips  his  neighbor  without  cause, 
it  is  but  little  satisfaction  that  he  offers  to  pay  him  damages,  and  then 
boasts  of  his  justice.  While  Great  Britain  shall  practice  on  her  jus 
publicum,  other  nations  will  retaliate  ;  and  in  the  scramble  for  plunder, 
one  gains  about  as  much  as  another ;  the  parties  are  not  enriched,  nor 
greatly  distressed ;  neutrals  are  exasperated,  and  the  flames  of  war  ex- 
tended. Such  is  the  law  of  nations,  according  to  the  British  ministry, 
and  such  the  comment.  These  unwarrantable  claims,  and  the  practice 
upon  them  by  Great  Britain,  with  the  attempts  to  justify  them  in  this 
country,  and  the  concessions  made  by  our  government  in  favor  of  those 
claims,  have  been  extremely  unpropitious  to  the  federal  interest. 

A  few  remarks  on  the  general  principles  which  should  be  the  basis  of 
an  intercourse  between  belligerent  and  neutral  nations,  shall  close  this 
discussion. 

It  has  already  been  observed,  that  nations  at  war  have  no  right  to  in- 
terfere in  the  customary  occupations  of  nations  at  peace ;  on  the  obvit 
ous  principle  that  all  nations  are  equally  sovereign,  and  one  sovereign 
can  not  lose  his  rights  by  an  act  of  another,  without  his  own  consent. 
A  neutral  does  not  consent  to  surrender  any  right  to  a  belligerent,  with- 
out an  express  convention  for  the  purpose.  If  a  nation  in  peace  usually 
supplies  another,  even  with  instruments  of  war,  she  has  the  same  right 
to  continue  the  trade  in  war ;  it  is  her  customary  occupation,  the  means 
of  subsisting  her  citizens,  and  not  intended  as  a  hostile  act.  Such  is 
the  law  of  natural  justice.  Nothing  is  contraband  by  natural  lata — the 
twondeas  are  imcompatible.  Contraband,  by  its  definition  and  origin, 
implies,  what  is  prohibited  by  an  express  act  of  sovereign  authority. 

"Neutrals,"  says  Vattel,  "having  no  part  in  the  quarrel  of  nations  at 
war,  are  under  no  obligation  to  abandon  their  trade,  that  they  may  avoid 
furnishing  them  with  the  means  of  making  war."  Such  is  the  law  of 
justice  resulting  from  the  nature  of  sovereignty  and  equal  rights. 

On  what  principle  then  can  a  belligerent  interfere  with  the  business 
of  a  neutral  ?  The  general  principle  is  an  obvious  one  ;  but  its  details 
are  difficult  and  perplexed.  The  general  rule  is,  that  a  neutral  nation 
may  do  every  thing,  in  time  of  war,  which  does  not  make  it  a  party  in 
the  contest,  without  being  subject  to  be  called  in  question  by  either  par- 
ty. An  act  of  a  neutral,  evidently  intended  to  supply  one  party  with 
means,  in  preference  to  the  other,  is  a  hostile  act,  and  associates  the 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  Ill 

.leutral  with  the  party  so  supphed,  as  an  enemy  to  the  other  party. 
Every  act  performed  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  or  business  of  any 
kind,  not  with  a  hostile  intent,  or  with  a  view  to  assist  one  party  in  pre- 
ference to  anotlier,  is  a  lawful  act.  of  which  neither  party  can  complain. 

Among  the  ancient  nations  whose  history  is  recorded,  no  precise  rules 
were  established,  by  which  a  neutral  was  deemed  to  become  an  asso- 
ciate with  the  party  assisted.  But  it  has  been  observed,  that  any  sup- 
plies of  provisions,  as  well  as  warliko  stores,  were  arbitrarily  consider- 
ed as  proof  of  a  hostile  disposition.  When  the  Romans  first  invaded 
Asia,  in  their  war  with  Antiochus,  ^milius,  their  naval  commander,  re- 
ceived intelligence  that  the  Teji  freely  supplied  the  fleet  of  Antiochus 
with  provisions,  and  had  promised  them  five  thousand  measures  of  wine. 
He  immediately  changed  his  course  and  proceeded  to  their  port,  with  a 
view  to  take  the  stores  provided  for  his  enemies,  or  "  ipsos  pro  Iwstilus 
habiturus,''''  (determined  to  consider  them  as  enemies.)  He  landed  and 
directed  his  troops  to  ravage  the  adjacent  country.  Envoys  were  im- 
mediately dispatched  from  the  city,  exculpating  the  citizens  from  any 
hostile  act  toward  the  Romans.  The  commander  replied,  that  "  ihey 
had  supplied  his  enemy  with  provisions,  and  had  promised  him  a  large 
quantity  of  wine  ;  but  if  they  would  furnish  similar  supplies  for  his 
fleet,  he  would  recall  his  men  from  plundering — if  not,  he  should  treat 
them  as  enemies." — (Liv.  37,  27,  28.) 

The  method  taken  by  the  Roman  commander,  to  ascertain  quo  animo 
those  people  supplied  his  enemy,  was  the  true  mode  ;  that  is,  to  require 
them  to  administer  to  his  own  fleet  the  same  aids.  If  they  consented, 
he  was  ready  to  consider  them  as  impartial  neutrals ;  if  not,  he  had  a 
right  to  consider  them  as  partners  with  his  enemy. 

This  is  unquestionably  a  true  and  sound  principle,  that  a  neutral,  tra- 
ding with  each  and  every  belligerent  nation  without  reserve  or  prefer- 
ence, and  impartially  furnishing  them  with  any  commodities  which  can 
be  spared,  must  be  treated  as  a  peaceable  nation,  and  not  incurring  blame 
from  either  of  the  belligerent  powers.  Were  nations  to  annul  all  pro- 
hibitions, and  throw  open  the  ports  of  nations  at  war  to  all  iieutrals, 
without  distinctions  of  parties  or  cargoes,  the  operation  of  such  free 
commerce  would  not  essentially  affect  belligerent  nations,  nor  the  issue 
of  their  quarrels.  They  would  be  supplied  more  uniformly,  and  at  a 
less  price  ;  but  in  fact,  present  prohibitions  and  seizures  never  effectu- 
ally interrupt  supplies.  Nations  at  war,  in  these  days,  always  find  sup- 
plies of  provisions,  naval  and  military  stores. 

The  arbitrary  customs  and  practices  of  nations,  which  formerly  laid 
open  all  commerce  to  vexations  by  the  parties  at  war,  led  to  the  scheme 
of  obviating  such  inconveniences  by  positive  institutions.  The  period 
in  which  this  design  was  effected,  as  before  observed,  was  the  last  forty 
vears  of  the  seventeenth  century ;  before  which  period,  every  bellige- 
rent sovereign  took  the  liberty  to  prohibit  trade  with  his  enemies  at  plea- 
sure. Such  arbitrary  proceedings,  while  some  of  the  nations  of  Eu- 
rope were  almost  always  in  war,  produced  seizures,  confiscations,  mu- 
tual complaints,  recriminations,  and  reprisals  without  end.  From  this 
calamitous  condition,  when  despotic  will  was  law,  and  rights  were  un- 
defined— when  merchants  were  robbed  and  imprisoned,  and  sovereigns 
had  no  means  of  redress  but  reprisals,  the  benign  policy  of  modern  na- 


112  RIGHTS    OF   NEUTRALS. 

tions  had,  after  long  struggles  and  immense  difficulties,  extricated  their 
commerce,  by  means  of  mutual  stipulations  in  public  treaties.  This 
was  a  vast  improvement  in  the  political  state  of  nations.  Great  Britain 
pretends  that  she  finds  "  nothing  but  disadvantage"  in  such  conventions, 
and  is  steadily  pursuing  the  design  of  annulling  their  obligations,  with 
a  view  of  leaving  sovereigns  to  regulate  their  conduct  by  the  general 
"  laws  of  nations."  This  is  tantamount  to  an  attempt  to  revive  the  sav- 
age slate  of  man — to  take  off  all  restraint  upon  sovereigns  at  war — to 
leave  the  laws  of  nations,  undefined,  to  be  expounded  by  arbitrary  will, 
according  to  exigencies,  or  by  the  ancient  maxims  of  lawless  and  pre- 
datory barbarians. 

But  this  systematic,  encroachment  on  natural  rights — this  abominable 
attempt  to  break  down  the  (ew  barriers  which  nations  have  erected 
against  the  barbarous  maxims  of  despotic  will,  and  to  revive  the  ancient 
savage  rules  of  warfare,  ought  to  be  resisted  by  every  civilized  nation. 
Natural  law  permits  no  abridgment  of  the  sovereignty,  nor  interruption 
of  the  commerce  of  any  nation,  without  its  consent.  This  is  the  high 
prerogative  of  compact  only,  and  wretched  will  be  our  condition,  if  we 
can  not  maintain  the  ground  which  has  been  gained  by  ancient  treaties. 

[Published  in  1802] 


POSTSCRIPT. 


The  foregoing  essay  was  sent  to  the  press,  before  I  had  seen  the 
pamphlet  written  by  Mr.  Jenkinson,  now  Lord  Liverpool,  in  1757,  and 
republished  in  1794.  On  perusing  it,  I  find  no  occasion  to  alter  my 
opinions  or  reasonings  on  the  subject  of  the  rights  of  neutral  nations ; 
but  my  opinions  are  greatly  confirmed,  by  the  weakness  of  many  of 
his  lordship's  arguments. 

His  lordship  asserts  that  "  the  right  of  protection  must  have  for  its 
foundation  some  law,  which  has  force  in  that  place  where  the  right  of 
protection  is  claimed.  If  neutral  nations  have  any  right  to  protect  the 
property  of  the  enemy,  it  must  take  its  rise  from  those  laws  which  are 
the  established  rules  of  conduct  between  nations,  and  particularly  on 
that  element  where  this  right  is  supposed  to  be  exerted.  No  civil  or 
municipal  institutions,  and  much  less  the  privileges  arising  from  them, 
can  here  take  place  ;  they  have  no  force  but  under  the  dominion  of 
those  who  agreed  to  their  establishment." — Edit.  1794,  p.  7.  "  The 
right  which  governments  enjoy  of  protecting  the  property  of  the  ene- 
my, is  a  consequence  of  the  right  of  dominion;  unless  therefore  their 
dominion  extends  over  the  ocean,  the  right  of  property  can  not  there 
take  place." — pp.  8,  9.  His  lordship  proceeds  to  state  that  dominion 
gives  a  right  of  enacting  laws — that  tlie  laws  of  nations  do  not  take 
effect  under  the  special  jurisdiction  of  nations  ;  but  that  (on  the  ocean,) 
out  of  the  verge  of  this  particular  jurisdiction,  the  laws  and  privileges 
which  attend  that  dominion  cease,  and  the  general  laws  of  nations  have 
their  force.  The  general  inference  from  these  principles  is,  that  na- 
tions can  not  protect  the  property  of  the  enemy  of  another,  on  the 
ocean,  because  such  property  is  seizable  by  the  laws  of  nations. 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  113 

The  wTiole  of  this  reasoning  is  anticipated,  and  it  is  presumed  amply 
refuted,  in  the  preceding  essay.  The  premises  are  assumed  by  his 
lordship,  contrary  to  fact  and  principle.  The  ships  of  a  nation  are  7iot 
out.  of  its  jurisdiction  when  on  the  high  seas.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
sovereignty  or  dominion  is  as  complete,  as  within  its  territories  on  land. 
No  offense,  no  trespass,  no  crime  committed  on  board  of  a  ship  on  the 
ocean,  is  triable  by  the  laws  of  nations,  (except  piracy.)  On  the  other 
hand,  every  crime  and  every  controversy  among  the  seamen,  is  cogni- 
zable alone  before  the  tribunals  of  the  nation  to  which  the  owner  be- 
longs. This  fact  proves  the  dominion  to  be  exclusive  and  complete,  as 
it  is  on  land,  within  the  territories  of  the  nation.  Pirates  are  the  com- 
mon enemies  of  nations ;  and  the  reason  why  all  nations  have  a  right 
to  seize  and  try  them,  is  that  all  have  complete  jurisdiction  on  the  high 
seas.  The  right  to  the  ocean  is  a  common  right  and  a  complete  right — 
it  is  not  imperfect,  nor  subject  to  any  participation  of  authority  among 
nations.  The  sea  is  the  common  highway  of  nations — all  have  an 
equal  right  to  the  use  or  temporary  occupancy — but  the  place  occupied 
for  the  moment,  is  the  exclusive  property  of  the  occupant.  The  same 
principle  extends  to  the  laws  of  the  ocean.  The  jurisdiction,  perfect 
and  complete,  accompanies  the  ship  of  every  nation — the  laws  of  that 
nation  operate  upon  the  property  and  the  persons — and  to  the  laws  of 
each  nation  alone,  are  the  persons  on  board  of  its  ships  amenable. 
And  these  rights  of  dominion  can  be  impaired  or  abridged  by  no  au- 
thority, except  by  mutual  compact. — (Vattel,  book  i,  ch.  23 ;  book  ii, 
ch.  7,  9.)  The  right  of  search,  unless  authorized  by  treaty,  is  no  other 
than  the  practice  of  violence,  established  by  the  arbitrary  usage  of 
tyrannical  princes  or  states,  for  their  own  convenience,  but  in  direct  op-  ^^^ 
position  to  morality  and  justice.  ^ 

His  lordship,  in  the  whole  of  his  argument,  takes  it  for  granted  that 
by  the  right  of  loar,  all  the  goods  and  property  of  an  enemy  become 
subject  to  seizure  and  confiscation.  This  subject  is  also  anticipated  in 
the  preceding  pages,  but  a  few  remarks  may  be  here  added. 

By  the  laws  of  moral  right  and  justice,  as  now  understood  among 
civilized  nations,  the  only  justifiahle  reasons  for  seizing  an  enemy's 
goods,  are  for  indemnification,  when  damage  has  been  done,  or  that  he  | 
may  be  disabled  from  further  injury,  and  compelled  or  induced  to  make 
peace.  These  I  believe  to  be  the  only  reasons  ever  assigned  for  taking 
and  destroying  an  enemy's  property.  There  certainly  can  be  no  other 
just  motives.  Now  I  appeal  to  his  lordship's  own  arguments,  to  dis' 
prove  the  right  of  belligerent  nations  to  seize  and  apply  to  their  own 
use,  the  property  of  an  enemy,  except  for  indemnification.  His  lord- 
ship, page  7,  admits  in  so  many  words,  that  "  governments  succeed  to 
no  other  rights,  but  such  as  their  respective  members  enjoyed  in  a  slate 
of  individuality ;"  that  nations  are  to  each  other,  as  individuals  in  a 
state  of  nature,  without  a  common  judge  and  protector ;  and  therefore 
have  a  right  to  protect  themselves  in  the  same  manner.  Granted. 
But  if  A  makes  an  attack  on  B  with  a  weapon,  B  has  a  right  to  arrest 
the  stroke,  and  to  seize  the  instrument ;  but  the  weapon  does  not  he- 
come  the  property  of  B.  The  property  is  not  changed.  B  can  keep 
the  weapon  till  the  assailant  is  pacified,  and  himself  delivered  from  the 
fear  of  his  power.     But  this  is  no  more  than  a  sequestration,  not  a 

15 


114  EIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

change  of  property.  There  is  not  a  case  in  which  an  individual  ag- 
gressor forfeits  his  natural  right  to  property,  by  using  it  for  the  annoy- 
ance of  another.  If  such  a  forfeiture  ever  occurs,  it  must  be  by  vir- 
tue of  a  municipal  law.  Damages  alone  are  incurred  by  private  injury, 
and  these  are  to  be  repaired  ;  but  all  seizures  beyond  reparation,  are 
robbery. 

If  then,  governments  succeed  to  no  rights  not  enjoyed  by  individuals, 
they  have  no  right  to  seize  and  appropriate  the  property  of  an  enemy, 
and  this  by  his  lordship's  own  statement.  Upon  this  principle,  nations 
have  a  right  only  to  seize  and  sequester  such  goods  of  an  enemy,  as 
are  the  means  of  annoyance ;  but  the  danger  being  past,  and  the  ene- 
my reconciled,  the  goods  ought  to  be  restored.  This  is  political  moral- 
ity, precisely  analogous  to  the  justice  which  is  enforced  by  law  among 
individuals. 

Should  it  be  said  that  nations  will  not  observe  these  maxims  of  moral- 
ity, it  is  replied  that  such  a  remark  is  not  relevant  to  the  question. 
The  advocates  of  the  laws  of  war  and  plunder,  choose  to  rest  their 
cause  on  maxims  of  right  and  justice,  and  on  this  ground  they  are 
combated.  If  they  abandon  this  ground,  and  resort  to  expedience  or 
necessity,  superior  to  morality,  it  will  then  be  time  enough  to  meet 
them  on  that  ground. 

The  right  of  seizure  for  the  sake  of  indemnification,  stands  on  bet- 
ter ground  ;  and  in  cases  of  defensive  war,  is  justifiable.  But  to  show 
how  futile  is  this  pretense,  it  is  only  necessary  to  remark,  that  if  moral- 
ity and  justice  had  any  influence  in  deciding  the  rights  of  war,  an  ac- 
count of  the  goods  and  estate  seized  and  conquered  ought  to  be  taken, 
and  the  surplus,  above  the  amount  of  damages,  ought  to  be  restored 
upon  pacification.  Besides,  the  goods  taken  by  privateers,  are  the 
property  of  the  owners,  not  of  the  state ;  nor  are  they  applied  to  in- 
demnify those  who  suffer  damage.  One  individual  suffers  ;  another  be- 
comes rich.  There  is  no  adjustment  of  damages ;  government  rarely 
or  never  undertakes  to  pay  the  losses.  So  that  although  indemnifica- 
tion is  the  pretense,  it  is  rarely  or  never  procured  by  the  plunder  of  an 
enemy.  It  would  be  more  honest  and  more  honorable  to  avow  the  real 
motives  for  war,  which  usually  are  ambition,  revenge  or  the  savage 
passion  for  plunder,  which  modern  delicacy  affects  to  conceal  but  can 
not  extinguish. 

"  An  individual  then,'*  says  his  lordship,  "  in  a  state  of  nature  would 
have  had  an  undoubted  right  to  protect  his  own  person  and  property 
against  an  attack — but  if  I  am  engaged  in  contention  with  another, 
would  he  then  have  a  right  to  protect  him  against  me  ?  Most  Cer- 
tainly not ;  since  he  thereby  would  deprive  me  of  a  right  which  the 
law  of  nature,  for  my  own  security,  would  in  such  case  give  me,  of 
seizing  the  property  of  this  my  enemy  and  destroying  his  person.  If 
he  thought  my  conduct  manifestly  injurious,  so  as  to  call  for  general 
resentment,  he  would,  on  that  account,  become  my  enemy  himself; 
but  as  he  calls  himself  a  neuter,  to  act  in  this  manner  against  me, 
would  be  no  less  absurd  than  unjust.  Such  therefore,  and  no  more,  is 
the  right  of  protection,  which  government  enjoys  at  present  in  those 
places,  to  which  their  own  dominions  do  not  extend.  They  have  suc- 
ceeded to  the  rights  only  of  their  respective  members,  and  by  conse- 
quence these  only  can  they  protect."  p.  8.  » 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  115 

No  persoiT  denies,  that  a  nation  directly  assisting  another  when  at 
war,  and  with  a  view  to  add  to  its  strength  against  an  enemy,  becomes 
an  associate  in  tiie  contest.  But  his  lordship  supposes  that  a  neuter 
nation  carrying  the  goods  of  a  belligerent,  deprives  his  enemy  of  a 
right  given  him  by  the  law  of  nature  of  seizing  his  property  and  de- 
stroying his  person.  But  the  law  of  nature  gives  no  such  right  of 
seizure  and  destruction,  beyond  what  is  necessary  for  defense  and  dam- 
ages. It  was  a  practice  of  barbarians  to  plunder,  destroy  and  kill  to 
the  utmost — but  this  is  not  a  law  of  nature,  on  the  contrary  it  is  as  un- 
natural as  it  is  cruel  and  immoral.  And  1  have  satisfactorily  proved, 
that  the  plundering  system,  in  modern  days,  has  not  the  remotest  influ- 
ence on  the  issue  of  a  war — it  neither  shortens  its  duration,  nor  contri- 
butes to  the  future  security  of  the  parties. 

The  writer  takes  it  for  granted,  that  it  is  necessaiy  for  the  safety  of 
a  belligerent,  to  take  his  enemy's  property,  wherever  he  can  find  it : 
but  this  is  utterly  denied.  This  position,  so  generally  conceded,  is  as- 
sumed in  direct  contradiction  to  fact  and  experience.  The  taking  of  a 
little  property  from  the  merchant,  a  subject  of  the  enemy,  is  of  no  more 
consequence  to  the  final  issue  of  the  war,  than  the  color  of  his  coat  or 
the  shape  of  his  hat.  If,  in  the  case  put  by  his  lordship,  of  two  per- 
sons fighting,  a  third  person  steps  in  and  takes  part,  by  striking  or  put- 
ting weapons  into  the  hands  of  one  of  them,  he  makes  himself  a  part- 
ner in  the  contest.  But  the  persons  who  furnish  food  and  clothing  to 
them  and  their  families,  while  they  fight,  do  not  become  associates ; 
because  the  duties  of  humanity  and  the  ordinary  business  of  life,  are 
of  paramount  obligation. 

Two  persons,  in  a  state  of  nature,  if  that  state  can  be  found,  fighting 
for  superiority  or  defense,  can  not,  on  that  account,  have  any  right  to 
rob  each  other  of  things  acquired  by  labor  or  other  good  title,  and  not 
directly  necessary  to  maintain  the  contest.  The  goods  of  each,  neces- 
sary for  the  use  and  conveniences  of  life,  would  still  remain  uninfected 
by  the  quarrel — the  ownership  of  each  would  be  unimpaired — and  the 
ordinary  trade  of  a  third  person,  in  those  articles,  would  remain  as  legal 
and  as  little  subject  to  justifiable  violations,  as  when  the  parties  were  at 
peace.  It  is  a  fundamental  principle,  on  which  I  rely  with  confidence, 
that  no  personal  or  political  quarrel  can  afl"ect  the  rights  of  a  third  per- 
son or  of  neutrals.  Their  right  to  trade  in  and  to  carry  the  goods  of 
the  parties  at  war,  remains  unimpaired.  It  is  not  in  the  power  of  the 
imagination  to  conceive  a  case,  in  which  the  rights  and  stipulations  of 
A -and  B  can  be  impaired  by  the  sole  act  of  C.  The  only  plausible 
pretense  on  which  a  belligerent  can  claim  to  interrupt  the  commerce  of 
a  neutral  in  his  enemy's  goods,  is,  that  a  state  of  war  gives  him  some 
title  to  such  goods.  But  if  the  title  is  not  actually  changed  and  vested 
in  the  claiming  power,  by  the  state  of  war,  it  is  an  imperfect  right, 
which  becomes  complete  only  by  the  possession.  In  this  case,  the  sove- 
reign must  gain  possession  by  a  lawful  act — but  if  he  takes  the  prop- 
erty from  a  neutral  nation,  without  its  consent,  he  violates  the  sove- 
reignty and  independence  of  that  nation,  and  commits  a  trespass.  Such 
is  the  fact. 

Lord  Liverpool  admits  that  an  enemy's  property  is  justly  protected 
by  a  neutral  nation  within  its  exclusive  jurisdiction  ;  but  declares  that 


116  RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

this  dominion  extends  not  to  the  sea.  He  says,  on  the  ocean  the  law  of 
nations  prevails,  and  all  that  pass  thereon,  are  subject  to  it,  without  ei- 
ther privilege  or  exemption. — p.  10.  Astonishing  assertions  !  Who 
has  made  this  law  of  nations  ?  Who  is  the  legislator,  possessed  of  the 
enormous  power  to  abridge  the  rights  of  ownership  on  the  ocean.?  Who 
has  enacted  that  my  ship  is  less  my  property  than  my  house  }  I  chal- 
lenge all  the  advocates  of  the  plundering  usages  of  nations,  to  point  to 
the  origin  of  this  distinction  ;  to  show  me  the  law  which  declares  that 
my  ship  at  the  wharf  is  exclusively  my  property  ;  and  that  two  leagues 
from  land,  the  right  is  diminished,  and  the  citizens  of  another  nation 
have  participation  with  me,  in  the  property.  Point  me  to  the  principle 
of  natural  justice,  which  secures  to  a  sovereign,  at  the  wharf,  an  exclu- 
sive jurisdiction  over  a  ship,  and  at  two  leagues'  distance  gives  concur- 
rent jurisdiction  to  another  sovereign. 

It  will  be  said,  the  usages  of  nations  are  against  me.  True  ;  Deme- 
trius hung  the  merchant  who  was  carrying  goods  to  his  besieged  ene- 
mies. Here  is  precedent,  will  Lord  Liverpool  avail  himself  of  it .''  Go, 
hang  a  Swede  or  an  American,  that  is  conveying  goods  to  an  enemy  ! 
It  was  the  universal  usage  of  nations  to  plunder,  burn  and  ravage,  and 
to  murder  or  torment  enemies  ;  here  is  a  precedent  of  vast  authority  ! 
Will  my  opposers  plead  it  in  their  favor .''  If  precedent  is  authority, 
there  is  not  a  crime  nor  a  cruelty  which  the  heart  of  man  can  invent  or 
his  hand  perpetrate,  which  will  not  be  amply  justified.  And  to  the 
shame  of  civilized  man,  the  precedents  of  tyrants  and  barbarians,  in  the 
murderous  work  of  destruction,  are  collected  into  volumes,  and  dignified 
with  the  appellation  of  the  "  laws  of  nations  !" 

'  "  Admit  the  freedom  of  neutral  trade,"  says  his  lordship,  "  and  it 
becomes  the  interest  of  all  commercial  states  to  promote  dissensions 
among  their  neighbors  ;  the  quarrels  of  others  would  be  their  harvest." 
But  this  remark  supposes  what  is  not  true,  that  nations  are  intrigued  into 
war  by  the  merchants  of  other  states ;  for  they  are  more  directly  inter- 
ested in  a  free  trade.  The  reverse  of  the  proposition  is  the  truth  ;  that 
the  right  to  seize  an  enemy's  goods  and  interrupt  neutrals,  is  a  strong 
temptation  for  nations  to  engage  in  war  themselves.  And  it  is  not  a 
little  singular  that  his  lordship  should  have  overlooked  the  example  of 
Great  Britain  herself,  who  has  more  than  once  been  impelled  into  a 
war  with  Spain  by  the  popular  clamor,  for  the  sake  of  plundering  the 
rich  Spanish  ships  from  America  and  the  Indies.  Almost  all  the  wars 
of  antiquity  were  waged  for  the  sake  of  plunder ;  and  the  modern  mo- 
tives, however  disguised,  are  not  more  honorable.  The  wars  between 
Great  Britain  and  France,  are  rendered  popular  by  the  hope  of  plunder. 
It  is  time  for  mankind  to  awake  from  this  delusion,  and  learn  that  the 
laws  of  peace  are  more  congenial  with  justice  and  morality,  than  the 
laws  of  war ;  and  that  belligerent  powere  are  not,  by  virtue  of  the  sav- 
age laws  of  plunder,  to  trample  on  the  sovereignty  of  neutral  nations. 

What  is  the  foundation  of  the  law  of  nations  ?  Morality  and  conven- 
tion. The  principles  of  justice  and  utility  among  men,  constitute  mo- 
rality ;  these  principles,  extended  to  nations,  compose  the  laws  by  which 
they  ought  to  be  governed.  Morality  among  individuals  is  enforced  by 
municipal  laws  ;  among  nations  it  can  not  be  enforced  for  want  of  a 
common  sovereign.     But  the  laws  which  do  or  ought  to  govern  in  both 


RIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS.  117 

cases,  rest  on  precisely  the  same  foundation,  unless  modified  by  special 
agreement. 

I  shall  be  told  that  the  usages  of  nations  are  evidence  of  consent,  and 
principles  sanctioned  by  long  usage  have  obtained  the  force  of  laws. 

But  these  usages,  to  constitute  laws  binding  on  a  nation,  must  receive 
the  assent  of  that  nation.  No  usage,  repugnant  to  justice  and  fundamen- 
tal or  natural  rights,  can  be  a  law  to  a  nation  denying  its  obligation. 
Morality  is  binding  on  all  men  and  states  ;  practices,  inconsistent  with 
morality,  have  no  authority  over  a  nation,  unless  explicitly  or  tacitly 
recognized  as  law.  The  rights  of  flags  and  embassadors  stand  on  polit- 
ical morality ;  without  a  sacred  regard  to  their  safety,  no  intercourse 
could  take  place  between  nations ;  controversies  could  not  be  adjusted, 
and  war  would  be  interminable.  From  the  utility  of  these  rights  to 
society,  their  obligation  is  binding  upon  all  sovereigns  and  states.  These 
rights  have  been  often  violated  by  barbarous  nations — the  very  nations 
whose  usages,  in  regard  to  seizing  the  goods  of  enemies,  now  constitute 
the  "  laws  of  war."  The  violation  of  the  safety  of  embassadors,  is  how- 
ever reprobated  by  all  civilized  nations — but  not  more  than  the  modem 
practice  of  robbing  neutral  ships  of  enemy's  property,  would  be  repro- 
bated, were  there  a  common  sovereign  over  nations,  to  enforce  a  due 
respect  to  the  rights  of  property,  as  well  as  of  persons. 

The  idea  of  Lord  Liverpool  that  the  laws  of  nations  only  have  force 
on  the  ocean,  is  extremely  incorrect.  They  operate  with  as  much  force 
on  land,  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  nations,  as  the  municipal 
institutions.  Embassadors,  envoys,  consuls,  and  their  suits,  enjoy  pre- 
cisely the  same  immunities  within  the  limits  of  a  foreign  country,  as 
they  do  on  the  ocean ;  and  for  an  obvious  reason,  that  the  laws  of  na- 
tions, which  are  the  principles  of  morality  and  political  justice,  have  the 
same  binding  force  within  as  without,  the  particular  jurisdiction  of  a 
sovereign.  On  the  other  hand,  each  nation  has  as  complete  jurisdiction 
over  its  property  and  subjects  on  the  ocean,  as  within  its  territorial  lim- 
its. The  jurisdiction  of  a  nation  over  the  seamen  of  a  ship  at  sea,  be- 
longing to  its  subject,  is  not  held  under  any  law  of  nations,  established 
and  operating  on  that  element ;  it  is  derived  from  its  own  authority  or 
right  over  that  subject,  and  from  its  perfect  right  to  the  use  of  any  por- 
tion of  the  ocean,  not  previously  occupied.  And  this  right  of  any  and 
every  nation  to  the  use  of  the  ocean,  instead  of  being  derived  from  the 
laws  of  nations,  either  expressed  or  implied,  existed  anterior  to  any 
usage  or  stipulation  on  the  subject.  It  is  a  natural  right  of  every  nation, 
which  no  other  state  can  abridge  or  modify,  without  its  consent.  From 
the  common  error  on  this  subject,  has  proceeded  the  opinion  that  ships 
at  sea,  are  less  the  property  or  less  the  castles  of  an  owner,  than  his 
house  on  land.  This  error  is  extremely  mischievous  and  ought  to  be 
subdued.  Has  a  belligerent  the  right  to  enter  the  house  of  a  neuter  on 
land,  and  search  for  his  enemy's  goods ;  No,  is  the  answer,  and  the 
principle  is  admitted  by  all  parties.  Is  the  property  of  a  man  in  his 
ship  less  perfect  than  in  his  house  }  Is  the  jurisdiction  of  his  sovereign 
less  complete  and  exclusive  over  the  ship  on  the  ocean,  than  over  the 
house  on  land .?  Let  the  political  casuist  define  and  prove  the  distinc- 
tion. 


4 


118  EIGHTS    OF    NEUTRALS. 

But  say  my  opposers,  we  admit  your  rights,  provided  you  do  not 
abridge  ours.  It  is  a  settled  maxim  that  a  man  must  so  use  his  own 
rights,  as  not  to  impair  those  of  his  neighbor.  Admitted.  But  who 
shall  determine  the  boundaries  of  our  rights  ?  Who  shall  fix  the  point 
where  the  use  of  my  right  begins  to  injure  that  of  another  ?  Shall  this 
important  decision  be  left  to  one  of  the  parties  ?  By'' no  means.  What 
then  shall  be  done,  when  there  is  no  common  arbiter.?  The  mind  in- 
stinctively suggests  the  answer,  the  point  must  be  fixed  by  con- 
vention. This  is  the  answer  dictated  by  justice  and  by  truth.  It  is  a 
principle  which  can  be  neither  shaken  by  argument,  nor  evaded  by 
sophistry. 

This  must  be  the  final  and  important  result  of  every  candid  investi- 
gation of  this  subject.  Particular  powers  now  claim,  by  virtue  of  the 
barbarous,  irregular  and  capricious  customs  of  princes  and  states,  to 
prescribe  the  limits  of  the  rights  of  neutral  nations,  without  their  con- 
sent. This  is  an  ex  parte  business — we  deny  the  right  of  the  judge  to 
decide,  and  the  validity  of  the  laws  on  which  he  pretends  to  found  his 
decisions. 

Every  nation  has  a  sovereign  right  to  carry  on  commerce,  not  only 
in  its  own  productions,  but  in  the  goods  of  every  other  nation,  by  its 
agreement  or  consent.  The  extent  and  manner  of  this  intercourse  are 
entirely  at  the  disposal  of  the  parties,  whether  in  peace  or  war,  and  are 
not,  in  the  remotest  degree,  subject  to  the  control  of  a  third  power  ; 
unless  in  the  case,  where  a  nation  by  supplying  one  belligerent  and  re- 
fusing to  supply  the  other,  or  by  some  other  act,  takes  a  part  in  the 
contest.  By  natural  right,  this  freedom  of  trade  extends  to  every  spe- 
cies of  goods  and  warlike  apparatus,  so  long  as  the  supplies  are  fur- 
nished with  impartiality  to  both  the  warring  parties.  Any  and  every 
restriction  of  this  natural  right,  must  be  by  agreement  and  consent  of 
the  party  restrained.  Every  attempt  of  a  third  power  to  restrain  that 
right,  is  usurpation,  and  not  the  less  unjust,  because  it  can  plead,  in  its 
favor,  the  usages  of  nations ;  for  in  regard  to  the  customs  of  war,  and 
of  intercourse  between  states,  prescription  may  be  claimed  in  favor  of 
every  crime,  every  breach  of  morality,  and  every  degree  of  violence. 
Once  admit  the  claims  of  Great  Britain  to  give  laws  to  neutral  com- 
merce on  the  ocean,  and  the  pretensions  of  France  to  conquer  nations 
into  liberty,  and  other  states  have  very  little  left  which  they  can  call 
their  own.  May  the  United  States  never  hold  their  rights,  subject  to 
such  laws.  Not  to  resist  these  claims  would  be  to  consent  to  national 
degradation  ;  to  admit  their  validity,  would  be  to  surrender  the  rights  of 
sovereignty  and  independence. 


"Wigf^.       ^^^ 


CHAPTER   III. 

ON   THE   SUPPOSED    CHANGE   IN  THE   TEMPERATURE 
OF    WINTER.* 

It  is  a  popular  opinion  that  the  temperature  of  the  winter  season,  in 
northern  latitudes,  has  suffered  a  material  change,  and  become  warmer 
in  modern,  than  it  was  in  ancient  times.  This  opinion  has  been  adopted 
and  maintained  by  many  writers  of  reputation ;  as  the  Abbe  Du  Bos, 
Buffon,  Hume,  Gibbon,  Jefferson,  Holyoke,  Williams  ;  indeed  I  know 
not  whether  any  person,  in  this  age,  has  ever  questioned  the  fact.t 

The  arguments  to  prove  that  the  winters,  in  ancient  times,  were  far 
colder  than  at  present,  are  the  following.  First,  in  regard  to  Palestine 
or  Judea. 

It  is  said  that  several  passages  in  the  Scriptures,  written  as  early  as 
the  days  of  Moses  and  David,  speak  of  snow,  hail,  ice,  and  hoar-frost, 
as  common  in  those  ages,  where  no  such  thing  is  now  known.  "  He 
giveth  snow  like  wool ;  he  scattereth  the  hoar-frost  like  ashes.  He 
casteth  forth  his  ice  like  morsels  ;  who  can  stand  before  his  cold  ?  The 
face  of  the  deep  was  frozen,"  &c. 

The  passages  in  Job  which  mention  snow,  hail,  ice  and  frost,  are  nu- 
merous. Dr,  Williams  supposes,  with  many  others,  that  the  book  of 
Job  was  written  by  Moses  ;  and  that  the  descriptions  refer  to  the  land 
of  Midian  or  Palestine,  about  the  latitude  of  30°  or  31°  north.  He  sup- 
poses also,  that  to  produce  solid  ice  on  rivers,  to  answer  to  the  descrip- 
tions, a  degree  of  cold  is  necessary,  corresponding  with  25°  by  Fahren- 
heit. This  he  concludes  to  have  been  the  extremity  of  cold,  in  the 
land  of  Midian,  in  the  age  of  Moses. 

The  writings  of  David  mention  ice  in  the  form  of  "  morsels,"  or 
crystals,  which  Dr.  Williams  has  observed  to  be  congealed  in  a  temper- 
ature of  about  31°  by  Fahrenheit.  On  the  strength  of  this  single  cir- 
cumstance, he  concludes  that  the  climate,  in  about  four  hundred  years, 
between  Moses  and  David,  had  become  warmer  by  six  degrees. 

I  am  really  surprised  to  observe  on  what  a  slight  foundation,  a  divine 
and  philosopher  has  erected  this  theory.  In  the  first  place,  we  have 
no  evidence  that  Moses  wrote  the  book  of  Job ;  on  the  contrary,  there 
is  strong  evidence  that  he  was  not  the  author. 

Critics  are  not  all  agreed  whether  that  book  describes  a  series  of 
facts,  or  is  a  species  of  dramatic  composition,  intended  to  represent  the 
vicissitudes  of  life,  and  the  human  passions.  Respectable  and  pious 
men  are  found  on  both  sides  of  this  question. 


*  Read  before  the  Conneclicut  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences,  1799. 

t  Hume's  Essays,  Vol.  I,  457,  Ess.  xi. — Gibbon's  Hist.  Vol.  I,  ch.  ix. — Williams' 
Hist,  of  Vermont,  p.  63,  first  ed.,  and  appendix.  No.  2. — Jefferson's  Notes,  que- 
ry 7. — Memoirs  of  Amer.  Acad.  Vol.  H,  part  i,  70. — Pelloutier's  Hist,  des  Celtes, 
liv.  xii. — Cyclopedia,  by  Rees,  Art.  Climate. 


^^Ti 


120  ON    THE    SUPPOSED    CHANGE    IN    THE 

But  it  is  not  very  material  as  to  the  present  argument.  It  is  sufficient 
for  my  purpose,  that  the  scene  of  that  book  is  expressly  laid  in  the  land 
of  Uz,  near  Chaldea,  which  is  in  that  part  of  Arabia,  called  the  Desert, 
extending  from  Syria  and  Judea,  to  Chaldea  on  the  east,  and  the  Eu- 
phrates on  the  north.*  Now,  we  have  strong  evidence  that  Moses  was 
never  in  that  country.  He  was  born  in  Egypt ;  he  afterward  fled  to 
Midian,  then  returned  to  Egypt,  to  deliver  his  countrymen  from  their 
bondage ;  but  was  not  permitted  to  go  further  north  than  Mount  Nebo, 
in  the  land  of  Moab,  over  against  Jericho,  just  upon  the  borders  of  Ju- 
dea, and  this  but  a  short  time  before  his  death. 

It  is  very  evident  that  Moses  had  never  before  seen  that  country,  be- 
cause he  was  directed  to  ascend  the  mount,  and  take  a  view  of  the  lands 
destined  to  be  the  residence  of  the  Israelites — a  circumstance  that  plain- 
ly indicates  his  former  ignorance  of  the  country,  which  could  not  have 
been  the  case,  had  he  ever  dwelt  in  Uz,  to  the  north  and  east  of  Judea ; 
for  in  that  case  he  must  have  passed  through  this  country. 

Nor  is  it  at  all  probable  that  the  writer  of  that  book  would  lay  the 
scene  of  it  in  a  counry  of  which  he  was  ignorant.  Every  circumstance 
tends  to  prove  that  the  writer  knew  the  country,  its  climate  and  produc- 
tions ;  and  the  frequent  mention  of  snow,  ice  and  frost  in  Job  is  the  high- 
est evidence  that  the  author  had  lived  in  a  region  where  these  substan- 
ces were  common  and  well  known.  If  we  suppose  the  writer  to  have 
lived  in  Judea,  or  in  the  northern  parts  of  Arabia  Deserta,  the  situation 
of  Uz,  he  must  have  seen  snow  and  ice  every  winter ;  but  Moses  prob- 
ably had  little  or  no  knowledge  of  them.  In  Midian  and  Egypt,  where 
he  had  spent  his  days,  they  rarely  occurred  ;  and  in  the  five  books,  sup- 
posed to  be  of  his  writing,  there  are  scarcely  two  or  three  references 
to  snow  or  frost.  In  the  31st  chapter  of  Genesis,  Jacob  is  represented 
as  complaining  to  Laban  that  he  had  served  him  twenty  years,  enduring 
drouth  by  day  and  frost  by  night ;  but  this  was  in  Padan-haran,  to  the 
northward  of  Jerusalem.  In  Exodus,  xvi,  14,  the  manna  in  the  wilder- 
ness is  compared  to  hoar-frost ;  and  in  the  6th  chapter,  a  leprous  hand 
is  compared  to  snow.  But  in  all  the  acknowledged  writings  of  Moses, 
there  is  not  the  least  evidence  that  ice  was  ever  seen  in  Hgypt,  except 
in  the  time  of  the  ten  plagues,  and  in  the  form  of  hail.  The  silence  of 
those  early  records,  on  this  point,  is  no  small  argument,  that  the  climate 
of  Egypt  was  then  as  warm  as  it  is  at  this  day.  Hail  has  been  some- 
times seen  in  that  country,  as  it  is  in  many  other  parts  of  the  world 
where  there  is  no  weather  cold  enough  to  congeal  water  on  the  earth.t 

Instead  therefore  of  proving  that  snow  and  ice  were  formerly  com- 
mon in  Midian  and  Palestine,  the  frequent  mention  of  these  substances 
in  Job,  is  almost  conclusive  evidence  that  Moses  was  not  the  author. 
That  book,  which  is  an  excellent  description  of  human  nature,  was 
unquestionably  written  by  some  person,  either  in  Uz,  or  in  the  northern 
parts  of  Judea,  where  ice,  frost  and  snow  were  then,  and  are  now,  an- 


*  Sir  William  Jones  has  remari<ed,  timt  the  book  of  Job,  from  the  language, 
must  have  been  written  by  a  man  of  Arabian  extract. — (Asiatic  Researches.) 
BiM;hart,  from  Hieronymus,  observes  that  Job  must  have  been  well  versed  in  Ara- 
bic.— (Geog.  Sac,  rap.  15.) 

f  See  an  account  of  a  hail-storm  in  Africa — Uirlius  Pansa  de  Dello  Afric.  43. 


TEMPERATUKE    OF    WINTER.  121 

nually  seen  on  the  mountains.  "  If  I  wash  myself  in  snow  water,  and 
make  my  hands  never  so  clean,"  says  Job,  chapter  9th ;  which  is  a 
description  that  would  not  answer  for  Egypt  or  Midian,*  but  answers 
well  to  the  greatest  part  of  Judea.  "  The  sweet  influences  of  Pleiades," 
mentioned  in  the  38th  chapter,  allude  doubtless  to  the  spring  rains, 
which  fell  in  Judea  about  the  rising  of  that  constellation,  which,  in 
Pliny's  time,  happened  near  the  vernal  equinox,  but  which,  fifteen  hun- 
dred years  earlier,  must,  by  the  precession  of  the  equinox,  have  hap- 
pened about  the  first  of  March.  This  circumstance  answers  well  to  the 
climate  of  Syria,  but  not  at  all  to  that  of  Egypt,  where  the  rising  of 
that  constellation  was  the  most  sickly  and  disagreeable  time  in  the  year. 
The  former  and  latter  rain,  mentioned  also  in  that  book,  indicate  that 
it  was  descriptive  of  the  climate  of  Syria  and  Judea ;  for  the  success 
of  agriculture  did  then,  as  it  does  now,  depend  entirely  on  the  autumnal 
and  spring  rains.  This  division  of  rainy  seasons  however  did  not  exist 
in  Egypt ;  it  was  used  only  in  Syria  and  Italy,  and  perhaps  in  Greece. 
Every  circumstance  that  occurs  to  my  view,  in  regard  to  the  book  of 
Job,  tends  to  prove  that  Moses  could  not  have  been  the  author ;  and 
most  of  the  Jewish  Rabbins  have  been  of  this  opinion.  Certain  it  is, 
from  internal  evidence,  that  the  scene  of  it  was  laid  in  a  country  much 
colder  than  Midian,  or  the  champaign  country  of  Palestine  ;  for  Hero- 
dotus, in  Euterpe,  expressly  declares  that  no  ice  was  seen  in  Egypt ; 
and,  in  another  passage,  that  the  climate  is  subject  to  no  variations. 

Let  us  then  attend  to  the  process  by  which  Dr.  Williams  attempts  to 
prove  a  change  of  climate  in  Palestine. 

He  presumes  Moses  wrote  the  book  of  Job — that  the  descriptions  of 
ice  and  snow  refer  to  the  land  of  Midian  and  Palestine,  and  therefore 
that  the  winter,  in  those  early  ages,  must  have  been  severe  enough  to 
freeze  solid  ice,  which,  he  says,  requires  a  temperature  of  about  25'^ 
by  Fahrenheit.  He  has  no  meteorological  observations  for  Palestine, 
but  presumes  the  climate  to  be  nearly  the  same,  as  to  heat,  with  that 
of  Egypt.  Mr.  Niebuhr's  observations  in  Grand  Cairo  in  1761-2,  make 
the  mean  heat  of  January  57°,  and  of  February  63° — the  coldest 
weather  therefore  he  supposes  to  be  about  49°  by  Fahrenheit.  Hence, 
if  Palestine  and  Egypt  have  nearly  a  similar  climate,  he  draws  the 
conclusion  that  in  modern  days,  "no  ice  or  snow  is  ever  seen  in  Pales- 
tine." 

This  inference  is  drawn  from  a  very  inaccurate  view  of  the  subject. 
The  facts  with  regard  to  Palestine  at  this  day,  are  these. 

The  whole  country  comprehended  between  Aleppo  on  the  north,  the 
Mediterranean  on  the  west,  and  the  barren  plains  of  Arabia  on  the 
south  and  east,  is  divided  into  high  hills,  mountains  and  plains.  Pales- 
tine on  the  south,  is  a  level  plain,  and  a  very  warm  country.  The 
thermometer  in  winter  is  seldom  seen  below  50°.  If  snow  ever  falls, 
it  is  speedily  dissolved.  In  this  mild  climate,  which  extends  along  the 
Mediterranean  shore,  the  orange,  date,  banana,  and  other  delicate 
trees  flourish,  without  injury  from  the  winter's  cold.  Little  fire  is  ne- 
cessary for  the  inhabitants  ;  instead  of  fire,  which  is  sometimes  wanted 

*  I  speak  of  the  Midian  near  the  Arabic  Gulf,  where  Moses  lived,  with  his 
father-in-law  ;  not  of  Midian  on  the  borders  of  Judea.  -^^ 

16 


•  "^ 


122  0:>i    THE    SUPPOSED    CHANGE    IN    THE 

during  the  cool  rains  of  winter,  the  poor  people  shut  up  their  cattle 
under  the  same  roof  with  themselves,  in  a  different  apartment,  and  re- 
ceive heat  enough  from  their  bodies  to  make  themselves  comfortable. 
Such  is  the  present  climate  of  the  plains. 

But  a  great  part  of  Syria  and  Judea  consists  of  mountains,  which 
are  every  winter  covered  with  snow  ;  and  often  the  earth  is  covered, 
for  months,  to  the  depth  of  several  feet.  The  mountains  from  Aleppo 
to  Jerusalem,  are  covered  with  snow  every  winter  ;  and  when  the 
snow  melts,  the  Jordan  overflows  its  banks.  This  happens  in  March  ; 
but  on  some  of  the  highest  hills,  as  Mount  Lebanon  and  Akkar,  the 
snow  is  seen  till  the  middle  of  summer.  This  was  the  fact  in  1784, 
when  Volney  visited  that  country.  See  his  Travels,  from  which  these 
facts  are  extracted.  This  author  further  observes,  that  on  the  east  of 
the  mountains,  the  cold  is  more  rigorous  than  on  the  sea-coast ;  and  at 
Aleppo,  Antioch  and  Damascus,  are  several  weeks  of  frost  and  snow 
every  winter.  The  inhabitants  of  the  mountains  leave  their  habitations, 
which  are  buried  in  snow,  in  winter,  and  pass  the  season  at  Tripoli,  on 
the  sea-coast.* 

The  principal  part  of  Judea,  or  the  Holy  Land,  lies  on  the  east  side 
of  the  mountains,  and  experiences  snow,  frost  and  ice  every  winter. 
What  shall  we  say  then  to  the  assertion  of  Dr.  Williams,  that  in  Pales- 
tine, "  snow  and  ice  are  never  seen"  in  modern  days. 

In  Syria  and  Palestine,  wheat  and  barley  are  sown  in  autumn,  about 
the  last  week  in  October ;  the  time  of  the  autumnal  rains.  Harvest,  in 
the  plains,  is  in  April  and  May.  On  the  mountains,  it  is  in  June  and 
July.     Spring  crops  are  planted  in  March  and  April. t 

Common  winters  therefore  in  Judea  are  mild  in  the  plains,  but  cold 
on  the  hills.  That  country  however  is  subject,  like  others,  to  severe 
winters,  which  prove  destructive  to  men  and  vegetables.  The  poverty 
of  the  great  body  of  the  people,  and  the  mildness  of  ordinary  winters, 
prevent  the  same  preparations  to  defend  against  cold,  which  are  made 
in  more  northern  latitudes.  In  1741-2,  the  winter  in  Syria  was  very 
severe  ;  and  that  of  1756-7  sunk  the  mercury  into  the  bulb,  at  Aleppo  ; 
multitudes  of  vines  were  killed,  as  were  olives  that  had  stood  fifty 
years.  Many  of  the  poorer  people  perished  with  cold.  In  winters  like 
that,  I  presume,  ice  is  formed  in  the  mildest  regions  of  Palestine. — 
(See  Lond.  Mag.  1764.) 

That  ordinary  winters  were  far  less  severe,  is  obviously  inferable  from 
Exod.  XXXV,  3.  "  Ye  shall  kindle  no  fire  throughout  your  habitations 
upon  the  sabbath  day" — ^an  injunction  which  had  reference  to  all  sea- 

•  "  Will  a  man  leave  the  snow  of  Lebanon.'^ — (Jer.  xviii,  14.)  Shaw,  in  his 
Travels,  p.  362,  savs,  Mount  Libnntis,  in  winter,  is  covered  with  snow;  and  p. 
363,  that  snow  at /erusalpm,  in  February,  causes  great  rejoicings.  He  mentions 
that  snow  fell  at  Cairo,  Jan.  10,  1639. 

t  If  the  bijssus  of  the  ancient  Egyptians  was  really  cotton,  as  the  commentators 
on  Herodotus  assert,  then  cotton  must  liave  been  the  produce  of  Egypt,  from  the 
earliest  times,  as  the  bandages  in  which  mummies  were  wrapped,  consisted  of  that 
article. — (Beloe's  Herod.  Euterpe,  86,  note.) 

When  Ezra  returned  from  the  captivity,  and  set  about  reforming  the  abuses  of 
marriage  among  the  Jews,  he  assembled  the  men  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  on  the 
20lh  dav  of  the  9lh  month,  and  it  was  a  time  of  great  rain.  This  was  about  the 
lOlh  or"l2th  of  December.— (Ez   x,  9.)  .        -  ..       - 


TEMPERATtTRE    OF    WINTER.  123 

sons  of  the  year ;  and  which  could  not  have  been  given  in  a  climate 
where  fire  was  indispensable  to  the  health  and  comfort  of  the  inhabi- 
tants. 

But  the  most  positive  evidence  which  can  possibly  exist  to  prove  that 
the  climate  of  Palestine  has  not,  suffered  any  increase  of  heat,  for  more 
than  three  thousand  years,  is  the  production  of  certain  fruits  in  the  days 
of  David,  which  will  not  thrive  in  any  but  mild,  warm  countries ;  as 
pomegranates,  olives  and  figs.  The  trees  producing  these  fruits  are  so 
often  mentioned  in  Scripture,  that  it  would  be  idle  to  name  the  instances. 
They  were  in  Judea  in  the  time  of  Moses  in  the  greatest  abundance  ;  for 
the  spies  sent  to  explore  the  country,  returned  with  pomegranates  and 
figs.— (Numb,  xiii,  23.) 

We  know  precisely  the  degree  of  heat  necessary  to  bring  these  fruits 
to  perfection  ;  that  is,  a  climate  as  mild  as  South  Carolina  and  Georgia. 
Figs  and  olives  grow  well  in  Virginia,  says  Mr.  Jefferson,  but  are  liable 
to  be  killed  by  irost.  We  then  ascertain  beyond  all  controversy,  that 
Palestine,  in  the  days  of  Moses,  was  as  warm  a  country  as  South  Caro- 
lina and  Georgia  are  in  this  age. 

The  palm-tree  furnishes,  also,  a  most  clear  and  incontestible  proof 
of  the  same  fact.  This  tree  will  grow  and  bear  fruit,  says  Pliny,  in  the 
maritime  parts  of  Spain,  but  the  dates  have  not  the  fine  flavor  of  those 
which  are  produced  in  Judea.  In  Europe,  for  instance  in  Italy,  they 
are  barren.  In  Africa  they  come  to  perfection,  but  soon  perish.  "  Ju- 
dea vero  inclyta  est  vel  magis  palmis,"  says  that  author  ; — Judea  is  par- 
ticularly renowned  for  palm-trees  or  dates. — (Lib.  13,  cap.  4.) 

These  trees  were  not  introduced  and  cultivated  first  in  Judea  by  the 
Jews.  The  Israelites,  when  they  migrated  from  Egypt,  found  palm- 
trees  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jericho,  and  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  in  all 
their  glory.  Jericho  is  called  the  city  of  palm-trees,  (Deut.  xxxiv,  3  ;) 
•and  the  word  itself,  in  the  Ethiopic,  signifies  a  palm-tree. — (Ludolf 's 
Lexicon,  col.  37.) 

No  man  will  be  skeptical  enough  to  deny  a  uniformity  in  the  laws  of 
the  vegetable  economy.  We  have  then  certaiii  proof  that  Palestine, 
more  than  three  thousand  years  ago,  was  a  milder  climate  than  Italy, 
milder  than  the  south  of  France,  as  mild  as  the  coast  of  Africa,  at  that 
time,  and  milder  than  South  Carolina  at  this  day. 

Another  remarkable  fact  is  decisive  of  this  question.  The  Jewish 
month  a"'aN*rr  Ahib,  was  named  from  the  ripeness  of  barley  in  Palestine 
and  Egypt,  at  that  season  ;  the  word  signifying  fullness  or  ripeness  from 
the  swelling  from  the  grain.  Abib  answers  to  the  latter  part  of  March 
and  the  beginning  of  April,  which  was  the  time  of  harvest  in  the  earliest 
ages.     Now  this  is  the  precise  time  of  harvest  in  modern  days.* 

The  facts  above  enumerated  solve  all  questions  as  to  the  ancient  cli- 
mate of  Judea  and  Egypt.  Frost,  snow,  and  ice  were  annually  seen 
'on  the  hills  and  mountains  of  Palestine,  and  were  perfectly  well  known 
to  writers  among  the  Jews;  hence  the  justness  of  the  descriptions  in 
Job  and  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  hard  winters,  these  phe- 
nomena must  have  been  extended  over  the  plains,  along  the  banks  of 

•  See  Shaw's  Travels,  pp.  364,  430,  folio.  Niebuhr's  Travels,  sect.  28,  ch.  3. 
Park.  Lex.,  under  3N.  ,.  ,  _  m«.v^,- 


124  ON    THE    SUPPOSED    CHANGE    IN    THE 

Jordan  ;  and  perhaps  on  the  sea-coast.  But  the  plains  in  common  years 
must  have  been  very  mild  and  warm.  All  this  is  precisely  the  state  of 
the  climate  in  Palestine,  in  the  present  age. 

Confirmatory  and  decisive  of  this  inference  is  the  fact,  that  from  the 
earliest  records  of  history,  the  inhabitants  of  Judea  constructed  their 
houses  with  flat  roofs,  as  they  do  at  this  day,  on  which  they  not  only 
amused  themselves  during  the  day,  but  erected  altars,  offered  incense, 
and  performed  other  pagan  rites  to  the  deities  of  the  country  ;  and  we 
have  the  express  authority  of  the  Scriptures  to  prove  that  as  early  as 
the  days  of  Samuel,  it  was  customary  to  sleep  on  the  tops  of  the  houses, 
as  it  is  at  this  day. — (See  Deut.  xxii,  8  ;  Josh,  ii,  6  ;  Judges  xvi,  27  ; 
Jer.  xix,  13  ;  Zeph.  i,  5 ;  Dan.  iv,  29  ;  1  Sam.  ix,  25,  26.) 

In  winter,  it  was  not  unusual  to  kindle  fires  in  Judea.  Thus  we  find 
Jehoiakim  sat  by  a  fire  in  the  ninth  month,  Chisleu,  which  answers  to  a 
part  of  our  November  and  December,  (Jer.  xxxvi,  22 ;)  and  Dr.  Rus- 
sel  informs  us  that  at  Aleppo,  they  begin  to  kindle  fires  about  the  end 
of  November. — (Nat.  Hist,  of  Aleppo,  p.  14.     Parkhurst,  330,  under 

Vdd.) 

Dr.  Williams  proceeds  to  prove  that  the  winters  in  Italy  have,  in 
about  eighteen  centuries,  became  %varmer  by  seventeen  degrees  on  Fah- 
renheit's scale.  His  proofs  are,  that  Virgil  in  many  places  of  his  Geor- 
gics,  has  given  directions  for  securing  cattle  and  sheep  from  the  effects 
of  snow  and  cold — that  Virgil,  Pliny,  Juvenal  and  ^lian  speak  of  ice, 
snow,  and  the  freezing  of  rivers,  as  events  common  and  annual.  But 
he  observes,  that  in  1782-3,  the  mean  temperature  at  Rome  in  Januaiy 
was  46°,  and  the  mean  of  the  greatest  cold  42°,  which  is  17°  less  cold 
than  what  is  necessary  for  the  freezing  of  rivers. 

The  Abbe  du  Bos,  Hume,  and  others  alledge,  in  proof  of  the  same 
doctrine,  the  following  facts.  In  the  year  of  Rome  480,  the  winter  was 
so  severe  as  to  kill  tlie  trees — the  Tiber  was  frozen,  and  the  ground 
was  covered  with  snow  for  forty  days.  Juvenal  describes  a  supersti- 
tious woman  as  breaking  the  ice  of  the  Tiber  to  perform  her  ablutions. 

"  Hybernam  fracta  glacie  descendet  in  amnem, 
Ter  matutino  Tiberi  mergetur." — (Sat.  vi,  521.) 

Horace  also,  says  the  Abbe,  speaks  of  the  streets  of  Rome  as  full  of 
ice  and  snow.  These  authors,  it  is  alledged,  speak  of  these  as  common 
events.  But,  says  the  Abbe,  "  at  present  the  Tiber  no  more  freezes  at 
Rome,  than  the  Nile  at  Cairo."* 

Dr.  Holyoke  mentions  the  description  of  the  severe  winter  A.  U.  C. 
536,  in  the  second  Punic  war,  when  the  siege  of  a  town  in  Spain,  near 
the  present  Barcelona,  was  obstructed  by  snow,  which  lay  for  thirty  days 
to  the  depth  of  four  feet. — (See  Memoirs  of  Am.  Acad.  Vol.  II,  p.  70.) 

From  these  representations,  it  is  concluded  that  Italy  has  now  a  much 
more  temperate  climate  than  at  and  before  the  Christian  era.  Let  us 
examine  this  point. 

Dr.  Holyoke  gives  us  the  mean  of  the  greatest  cold  at  Rome,  dedu- 
ced from  several  years'  observations,  within  the  last  half  century ; 
which  is  33°. 46,  a  little  above  freezing  point.     The  greatest  cold  is 

*  I  cile  this  from  Ilume,  Esb.  xi. 


TEMPERATURE    OF    WINTER.  125 

stated  at  31°.  If  we  admit  this  statement  to  be  correct,  then  Dr.  Wil- 
liams has  stated  the  extreme  cold  in  Rome  almost  nine  degrees  too  high ; 
of  course  we  must  deduct  nine  degrees  from  his  seventeen  degrees  of 
alteration,  in  eighteen  centuries,  which  is  a  very  material  difference. 

This  we  must  do,  and  more.  For  Brydone,  in  the  winter  of  1769-70, 
found  the  greatest  cold  at  Rome  in  January  to  be  27°,  a  degree  capable 
of  covei'ing  large  rivers  with  a  thin  coat  of  ice.  That  winter  was  per- 
haps colder  than  usual ;  but  by  no  means  of  the  severest  kind.  At  Na- 
ples, says  Brydone,  we  had  rainy  weather ;  at  Rome  it  was  clear  and 
frosty.  That  winter  then  would  at  Rome  produce  all  the  phenomena 
of  ice,  frost,  and  snow,  to  answer  the  description  of  the  Latin  writers  of 
the  Augustan  age. 

If  the  mean  temperature  of  the  winter's  cold  at  Rome  is  now  about 
33°,  it  is  not  more  than  eight  degrees  milder  weather  than  in  New  Eng- 
land ;  for  Dr.  Holyoke  found,  by  seven  years'  observations,  that  the 
mean  winter  temperature  at  Salem,  in  Massachusetts,  is  25°.74. 

I  know  not  the  position  of  the  thermometer  by  which  the  observations 
at  Rome  were  made.  But  I  would  remark  that,  if  those  observations 
were  made  in  the  city,  they  do  not  represent  the  general  temperature 
of  Italy.  I  found  by  numerous  observations  in  New  York,  that  ice  as 
thick  as  glass  in  our  windows,  was  uniformly  made  at  a  mile's  distance 
from  the  city,  when  an  accurate  thermometer  in  the  coldest  positions  in 
the  city  stood  at  40"^.  Such  is  the  difference  between  the  real  tempe- 
rature of  an  open  country,  and  the  artificial  one  of  a  city.  The  same 
difference  will  not  run  through  the  observations  of  the  whole  year,  but 
it  will  amount  to  two  or  three  degrees.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  this  to 
be  the  source  of  great  errors,  in  comparing  meteorological  observations 
in  different  countries. 

If  the  ordinary  winter  temperature  at  Rome  is  near  the  freezing 
point,  we  are  at  no  loss  to  account  for  the  snow  and  ice  of  Italy  in  an- 
cient times.  In  all  countries,  and  in  every  latitude,  hills  and  moun- 
tains are  cooler  than  plains.  This  difference  is  according  to  the  differ- 
ence of  altitude  ;  but  between  Rome,  in  a  plain,  near  the  sea,  and  the 
Apennines,  it  can  not  be  less  than  from  six  to  ten  degrees.  Thus 
while  at  Rome,  and  in  Campania  generally,  the  weather  is  mild,  and 
exhibits  little  or  no  ice,  the  whole  ridge  of  mountains  between  Tusca- 
ny and  Naples,  that  region  of  Italy  which  furnished  the  pasturage,  and 
for  which  the  directions  in  Virgil's  Georgics  were  intended,  is  covered 
with  snow,  and  experiences  severe  frosts.  This  was  not  only  the  fact 
in  Virgil's  time,  but  is  so  at  this  day.  Mr.  Arthur  Young,  a  distin- 
guished agriculturist,  traveled  in  Italy  in  November  and  December, 
1789.  In  passing  the  Apennines,  between  Florence  and  Bologna,  the 
first  days  of  December,  he  found  the  hills  almost  covered  with  snow  ; 
and  the  roads,  on  some  declivities,  a  sheet  oi'  ice.  On  the  26th  of  No- 
vember, the  weather  was  so  severe  as  to  freeze  Cyprus  wine,  and  milk 
burst  the  vessels  that  contained  it.  In  Lombardy,  he  found  the  peas- 
antry at  night,  sitting  in  a  passage  between  their  cattle,  in  the  stables, 
to  keep  themselves  warm ;  a  practice  resembling  that  in  Palestine, 
already  mentioned.* 

.>.      ,  „.  *  Young's  Tour,  Vol.  I,  p.  51(i ;  Dub.  1793. 


126  ON  THE  SUPPOSED  CHANGE  IN  THE 

It  is  well  known  also,  that  the  higher  regions  of  Mount  Etna  in  Sici- 
ly, a  far  milder  climate  than  that  of  Italy,  are  perpetually  covered 
with  snow. 

That  the  descriptions  of  ice  and  snow,  in  the  Augustan  age,  allude 
principally  to  the  hilly  country,  is  very  obvious  from  the  writings  of 
Virgil,  Horace,  and  Pliny. 

Virgil,  in  his  first  Georgic,  speaks  of  the  zephyrs  dissolving  the 
earth,  and  bringing  moisture  from  the  whitened  hills. 

Horace,  in  his  ninth  ode,  mentions  deep  snow  on  Mount  Soracte,  in 
Etruria,  about  twenty-six  miles  north  of  Rome. 

Pliny,  in  the  nineteenth  book  of  his  Natural  History,  is  more  explicit 
on  this  subject.  Speaking  of  the  luxury  of  his  days,  he  says,  "  Hi 
nives,  illi  glaciem  potant ;  poenasque  montium  in  voluptatem  gulas  ver- 
tunt ;" — some  drink  snow,  others  ice  ;  and  the  evil  or  scourge  of  the 
mountains  is  converted  into  a  gratification  of  the  palate.  This  pas- 
sage leaves  no  room  to  question,  that  the  ice  and  snow  used  in  Rome 
were  ordinarily  brought  from  the  mountains,  where  they  were  consid- 
ered as  a  calamity  ;  and  the  expression  "  pcEnasque  montium,"  clearly 
indicate  that  they  were  almost  peculiar  to  the  mountains. 

Virgil  directs  the  husbandman  to  plow  in  the  first  months  in  the  year, 
and  to  pray  for  moist  summers,  and  serene  winters ;  for,  says  the 
author,  the  winter''s  dust  increases  the  crop.  This  passage  is  no  incon- 
siderable proof  that  the  earth  in  some  parts  of  Italy  was  not  usually 
covered  with  snow  in  winter. 

The  winters  described  by  Livy,  when  the  Tiber  was  covered  with 
solid  ice ;  when  the  snow  lay  in  the  streets  of  Rome  for  forty  days ; 
and  in  Spain,  was  four  feet  deep  for  thirty  days ;  when  men,  cattle, 
and  trees  perished,  were  singularly  severe,  like  our  modern  winters  of 
1642,  1709,  1741,  1780,  which  happen  but  two  or  three  times  in  a  cen- 
tury. Any  man  will  be  convinced  of  this,  who  attends  to  the  descrip- 
tion of  them  in  the  original  authors.  I  find  they  happen  in  modern 
days,  as  frequently  as  at  any  former  period.  Scarcely  three  or  four 
such  winters  are  described  in  the  whole  history  of  Rome,  down  to  the 
age  of  Julius  Cesar ;  though  many  others  happened,  as  may  be  col- 
lected from  circumstances. 

The  severe  winter  of  the  year  of  Rome  354,  is  expressly  declared 
by  Livy  to  be  a  remarkable  event.  "  Insignis  annus  hieme  gelida  ac 
nivosa  fuit ;  adeo  ut  viae  clausse,  Tiberis  innavigabilis  fuerit." — (Lib.  5, 
13.)  He  calls  it  also  "  tristem  hiemem  ;"  and  it  was  followed  by  terri- 
ble pestilence.  Nothing  can  be  more  clear,  than  that  such  a  winter 
was  an  extraordinary  occurrence.  Without  considering  it  in  this  light, 
the  word  "  insignis"  has  no  meaning ;  and  instead  of  pi-oving  the  usual 
temperature  of  winter  at  Rome  to  have  been  severe,  it  is  the  strongest 
evidence  to  prove  that  the  winters  were  generally  mild,  and  the  Tiber 
navigable  in  the  winter  months.  Had  this  been  a  common  winter,  or 
any  thing  like  it,  it  would  not  have  been  singled  out  by  the  historian  as 
a  subject  of  remark.  This  explanation  is  applicable  to  all  the  instan- 
ces of  cold  winters,  described  by  historians.  Even  the  passage  in 
Juvenal,  if  it  proves  any  thing,  confirms  the  opinion  that  the  frost,  in 
his  days,  was  not  ordinarily  very  severe.  The  circumstance  of  a 
woman's  breaking  the  ice  in  the  morning,  to  bathe  in  the  Tiber,  indi- 


iti      TEMPERATURE    OF    WINTER.  127 

cates  that  tlie  ice  was  usually  thin  and  easily  broken ;  and  by  no 
means  admits  the  supposition  of  ice  a  foot  thick,  like  that  which  covers 
our  rivers.  It  supposes  a  thickness  of  ice  which  is  often  seen  on  the 
Tiber  at  this  day,  frozen  in  the  night,  and  dissolved  the  next  day. 

All  the  Roman  writers  speak  of  severe  winters,  by  way  of  distinction. 
Virgil  says,  "  sin  duram  metues  hiemem" — if  you  apprehend  a  hard 
winter.  And  Horace  attempts  to  dissuade  Augustus  from  his  design  of 
resigning  the  empire,  by  describing  the  severe  cold,  snow,  and  hail  of 
the  winter,  which  he  represents  as  prodigies,  and  evidences  of  the  re- 
sentment of  the  gods.  The  winter  to  which  he  refers  was  probably  of 
unusual  severity.  I  apprehend  the  great  source  of  error  on  this  subject 
has  been,  that  the  moderns  have  taken  for  representations  of  ordinary 
winters,  those  which  were  intended  for  a  few  rare  occurrences.  Cer- 
tain it  is  that  the  common  winters  of  Italy  were  not  severe,  but  mild. 
This  I  will  demonstrate  by  a  series  of  evidence,  drawn  from  the  phe- 
nomena of  the  natural  world,  which  can  not  deceive  us  in  regard  to 
climate. 

Pliny,  in  his  Natural  History,  lib.  2,  47,  has  given  us  an  account  of 
the  winds  in  Italy.  Among  other  things,  he  informs  us  directly  that 
the  "spring  opens  the  navigation  of  the  seas,  in  the  beginning  of 
which  Favonius,  the  west  wind,  mitigates  the  severity  of  winter,  about 
the  time  when  the  sun  enters  the  25th  degree  of  Aquarius.  That  time 
is  the  6th  day  before  the  ides  of  February."  This  was  the  8th  day  of 
the  month,  and  this  was  accounted  the  beginning  of  spring.  Virgil,  in 
his  third  Georgic,  confirms  this  declaration  of  Pliny,  and  speaks  of  the 
commencement  of  the  rainy  season,  that  is,  the  spring  rains,  about  the 
last  of  January. 

"  Cum  frigidus  olim 
Jam  cadit,  extremoque  irrotat  Aquarius  anno" — 

when  Cold  Aquarius  now  sets  and  sprinkles  his  dews,  at  the  close  of 
the  year.  This  refers  to  the  old  Roman  year  which  ended  the  last  of 
February,  the  month  when  Aquarius  set.  The  name  of  this  sign  indi- 
cates that  the  season  was  rainy  ;  and  the  testimony  of  both  these  au- 
thors concurs,  in  proof  that  the  winter  was  considered  at  an  end,  the 
beginning  of  February. 

Aquilo,  the  northeast  wind,  began  to  blow  about  the  setting  of  Plei- 
ades or  the  seven  stars,  which  was  near  the  3d  of  the  ides  of  Novem- 
ber, answering  to  the  10th  day  of  the  month. — (Pliny,  lib.  2,  47.*) 
This  was  the  introduction  of  cool  weather.  The  Septentrio,  or  north 
wind  from  the  Alps,  was  the  coldest  wind,  and  blew  mostly  in  Decem- 
ber and  January. 

Severe  winter  weather  set  in  about  the  last  week  in  December. 
The  halcyon  days  were  seven  days  before,  and  as  many  after,  the  win- 
ter solstice,  when  the  kingfisher  was  said  to  tranquillize  the  sea.  This 
period  of  mild  or  calm  weather,  seems  to  have  resembled  our  "  Indian 

*  By  the  precession  of  the  equinoxes,  that  constellation  now  sets  about  three 
weeks  later,  or  the  first  week  in  December.  But  our  modern  calendar  corres- 
ponds nearly  with  the  Julian  calendar  in  Pliny's  time.  The  name  .Aquarius,  giv- 
en by  the  Romans  to  the  sign  which  the  sun  passes  in  the  midst  of  winter,  demon- 
strates that  rain  and  not  snow,  predominated  as  the  characteristic  of  that  month. 


128  ON    THE    SUPPOSED    CHANGE    IN    THE 

summer,''  a  period  of  fine  weather  that  often  happens  just  before  win- 
ter. The  fable  of  the  halcyon  days  is  no  inconsiderable  proof,  that  the 
winter  did  not  set  in  with  rigor  till  after  the  winter  solstice. 

But  the  best  evidence  of  the  true  temperature  of  the  climate  of  Italy, 
and  the  course  of  the  seasons,  is  that  which  arises  from  the  time  of 
vegetation.     This  is  infallible  evidence. 

Pliny  relates,  Nat.  Hist.  lib.  16,  cap.  25,  that  spring  began  with  the 
blowing  of  Favonius.  This  time  is  expressly  fixed  to  have  been  the 
8th  of  February.  Pliny  calls  it  the  "  genial  breath  of  the  world." 
This  author  informs  us  that  some  vegetables  germinated  on  the  first 
blowing  of  this  wind.  "  Prime  Favonio  germinat  cornus,  proximus 
laurus,  pauloque  ante  aequinoctium  tilia,  acer ;" — the  cornelian  cherry 
germinates  on  the  first  blowing  of  the  west  wind  ;  afterward  the  laurel, 
and  a  little  before  the  equinox,  the  lime  tree  and  the  maple. 

In  the  5th  chapter  of  the  18th  book,  he  says,  "  some  persons  prefer 
planting  gourds  about  the  first  of  March,  and  cucumbei*s  about  the 
nones,"  or  middle  of  the  month.  In  the  34th  chapter  of  the  same 
book,  he  says,  "  Favonius  begins  the  spring ;  it  opens  the  earth,  being 
moderately  cool  and  salubrious.  It  directs  the  husbandman  to  prune 
his  vines,  to  take  care  of  his  corn,  to  plant  trees,  to  graft  apples,  and 
tend  his  olives." 

Spring  radishes,  says  the  same  author,  are  to  be  sown  after  the  ides 
of  February  ;  but  this  plant,  he  adds,  is  so  fond  of  cold  weather,  that 
in  Germany  it  grows  to  the  size  of  a  little  hoy.  Gardens  are  to  be 
plowed,  according  to  the  same  author,  about  the  ides,  the  13th  of 
February. 

Horace,  book  i,  ode  4,  expressly  says,  that  spring  begins  by  the 
favor  of  Favonius,  when  the  cattle  no  longer  seek  their  stalls,  the  hus- 
bandman his  fireside,  nor  are  the  meadows  any  longer  whitened  with 
frost. — (Varro,  de  Re  Rustica,  lib.  1,  28.) 

These  facts  indicate  a  moderate  climate,  like  that  of  the  Carolinas 
and  Georgia  in  America ;  and  they  could  not  be  true  of  a  climate 
where  common  winters  were  long  and  severe. 

The  real  temperature  of  Italy  is  ascertained  precisely  by  the  olive 
and  other  plants,  that  we  know  will  not  bear  severe  frost,  and  will  not 
thrive  and  come  to  perfection,  but  in  warm  climates. 

The  olive-tree  has  been  known  in  Greece  from  time  immemorial. 
(See  Theophrast's  History  of  Plants,  lib.  4,  5,  and  notes.)  At  what 
time  it  was  introduced  into  Italy,  is  not  recorded.  Fenestella,  says 
Pliny,  relates  that  in  the  age  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  the  olive  was  not 
known  in  Italy,  Spain,  or  Africa.  It  was  however  cultivated  in  all 
parts  of  Italy,  in  Spain  and  Gaul,  long  before  the  Christian  era. — (Plin. 
Nat.  HisL  lib.  15,  cap.  1.) 

Wc  have  then  the  data  to  ascertain  the  ancient  climate  of  Italy  with 
great  precision.  In  our  country,  olives  will  grow  well  in  Virginia,  but 
frosts  are  too  frequent  and  severe  to  permit  their  cultivation,  to  any  val- 
uable purpose.  In  South  Carolina,  they  are  cultivated  to  advantage. 
Italy  then  has  had,  from  very  early  ages,  a  climate  as  mild  as  that  of 
South  Carolina. 

The  fig  seems  to  have  been  a  native  of  Italy.  Plutarch,  in  bis  life 
of  Romulus,  tells  us  that  Romulus  and  Remus  were  found  under  a  fig- 


TEMPERATURE   OF   WINTER.  129 

tree,  where  they  were  nourished  by  a  wolf.  Whether  this  was  true  or 
not,  it  is  certain  that  the  Romans  paid  a  particular  veneration  to  a  fig- 
tree  that  was  in  the  forum, — "  ob  memoriam  ejus,  quas  nutrix  fuit  Rom- 
uli  et  Remi  conditoris  appellata,"  says  Pliny,  lib.  15,  18.  If  the  fig- 
tree  is  a  native  of  Italy,  the  climate  could  never  have  been  colder  than 
the  Carolinas  in  America.  This  evidence  is  incontestable,  and  it  totally 
overthrows  the  modern  hypothesis  of  the  severity  of  the  winters  in  an- 
cient Italy.  It  is  needless  to  swell  this  argument,  by  mentioning  many 
other  fruits,  as  dates,  pomegranates  and  others,  that  will  not  thrive  in 
cold  climates. 

The  same  plants  grew  and  produced  abundantly  in  Thessaly  and 
Macedonia ;  although  the  ancients  represented  the  latter  as  a  cold  coun- 
try.    It  was  doubtless  colder  than  Greece,  perhaps  colder  than  Italy  ; 
but  certainly  could  not  be  much  colder  than  the  Carolinas  in  America.* 
The  time  of  sowing  corn  in  Italy,  is  a  confirmation  of  what  is  here 

f  advanced.  Virgil  directs  the  husbandman  to  sow  barley  between  the 
autumnal  equinox  and  the  winter  solstice.  Wheat  was  not  to  be  sown 
till  the  last  of  October,  and  those  who  sowed  earlier  were  disappointed 
of  a  good  harvest. — (Georgic  1.)  These  facts  all  correspond  with 
each  other,  and  demonstrate  that  the  climate  of  Italy  was  then  mild, 
and  nearly  as  mild  as  it  is  at  present.  The  time  of  sowing  wheat,  it 
will  be  observed,  was  the  same  as  in  Palestine.  Severe  winters  often 
occur  now,  as  they  did  two  thousand  years  ago.  Several  winters  are 
on  record  within  a  few  centuries,  in  which  vines  and  trees  perished 
with  cold.  The  winter  of  1709  killed  trees  in  Italy;  as  did  that  of 
1757  in  Syria.  I  can  name  a  number  of  such  winters  within  three  or 
four  hundred  years. 

No  longer  ago  than  1788-9,  the  winter  was  so  severe  in  Europe, 
that  the  rivers  in  Estremadura  in  Spain,  and  in  Alantajo  i^i  Portugal, 
two  southern  provinces,  and  of  the  mildest  climate,  were  covered  with 
ice  ;  and  the  mountains  of  Asturia,  Leon  and  Biscay  were  covered 
with  deep  snow,  as  late  as  the  6th  of  March.  (See  the  gazettes  of  the 
year  1789.)  It  should  be  remarked  that  Barcelona,  near  which  the 
Romans  found  snow  four  feet  deep,  as  already  related,  is  in  the  north- 

•  em  part  of  Spain. 

Dr.  Williams,  as  a  further  evidence  of  a  mitigation  of  the  cold  in 
modern  winters,  mentions  the  present  state  of  the  climate  round  Con- 
stantinople and  the  Euxine  Sea,  compared  with  Ovid's  description  of  it 
in  his  days.  Ovid  was  banished  to  Tomos,  near  the  Euxine,  in  lat. 
44°,  about  the  7th  year  of  the  Christian  era,  and  died  there  in  the  15th 
year,  or  perhaps  the  16th.  He  mentions  that  the  Euxine  was  covered 
with  ice,  which  was  a  highway  for  man  and  beast,  and  that  wine  was 
offered  to  him  in  a  state  of  congelation.     All  this   might  be  true  at  the 

,  time  he  was  at  Tomos,  and  even  frequently  true,  without  supposing  the 
climate  essentially  different  from  what  it  is  at  present.  But  when  Ovid 
asserts  that  the  snow,  in  some  places,  was  not  dissolved  during  the  sum- 
mer, we  must  understand  him  to  refer  to  snow  on  the  high  mountains ; 
for  all  history  testifies  that  the  country  about  the  Euxine,  and  far  north, 


•Herodotus,  in  Thalia,  speaks  of  the  seasons  in  Greece  as  "  agreeable  and  tem- 
perate."—(Sert.  106.) 

17 


Y 


130  ON    THE    SUPPOSED   CHANGE    IN    THE 

was,  in  Ovid's  time,  and  long  before,  a  fine  grazing  and  corn  country. 
Both  Ovid  and  Virgil,  when  they  speak  of  the  Scythian  country,  as  be- 
ing always  clothed  with  snow,  must  have  intended  the  mountains ;  and 
we  have  the  authority  of  Lady  Montague,  who  traveled  through  the 
country  along  the  Danube  in  1717,  that  Mount  Hsemus  and  Rodope  are, 
in  modern  times,  always  covered  with  snow. — (Letter  25.)*  These 
mountains  are  a  degree  and  a  half  south  of  Tomos.  Surely  then  we 
have  no  reason  to  think  the  climate  has  suffered  any  considerable  alter- 
ation. 

Dr.  Williams  mentions  the  year  401,  when  the  Euxine  was  covered 
with  ice  for  twenty  days,  as  an  evidence  that  the  climate  was  formerly 
colder  than  at  present ;  and  notices  the  remark  of  Dr.  Smith,  in  Phil. 
Trans.,  No.  152,  that  the  Turks  were  greatly  astonished  at  the  appear- 
ance of  ice  at  Constantinople  in  1669 ;  [Dr.  Williams  by  mistake  has 
1667  ;]  and  he  then  adds,  "  In  all  the  adjacent  country,  instead  of  fro- 
zen sea,  frozen  wine,  and  perpetual  snow,  they  have  now  a  fine  mode- 
rate warm  climate." 

Here  again  Dr.  Williams  has  run  into  the  error  before  mentioned,  of 
taking  the  accounts  of  a  few  severe  winters  as  descriptions  of  the  ordi- 
nary  winters.  The  winter  of  401,  in  the  reign  of  Honorius,  was  du- 
ring the  approach  of  a  comet,  and  was  noted  for  its  severity,  as  an  unu- 
sual occurrence.  Any  person  may  observe  this,  who  will  consult  the 
original  histories.  Three  hundred  and  sixty  years  later,  viz.  in  762—3, 
a  still  more  severe  winter  covered  the  Euxine  with  ice  and  snow  of 
thirty  cubits'  thickness,  which  ice  at  the  breaking  up  of  winter,  was 
impelled  against  the  walls  of  Constantinople  and  beat  down  considera- 
ble portions  of  it.t  This  does  not  indicate  any  mitigation  of  the  cli- 
mate. A  similar  event  happened  in  the  reign  of  Achmet  I,  about  the 
year  1613  or  1614,  which  marked  a  severe  winter  and  no  mitigation  of 
the  climate.  The  winter  of  1669,  when  the  Turks  were  astonished  at 
ice  in  the  Bosphorus,  was  also  severe.  These  seasons  are  recorded  as 
rare  occurrences.,  and  this  was  the  fact  in  the  fourth  century,  as  well  as 
in  the  seventeenth.  Historians  have  taken  no  notice  of  ordinary  sea- 
sons, either  in  ancient  or  modern  times  ;  but  we  are  not  to  estimate  the 
temperature  of  climates  by  a  few  cold  winters. 

Winters  of  severe  cold  still  occur  in  Greece,  fully  answering  to  the 
descriptions  of  the  winters  of  antiquity.  Wheeler,  in  his  Travels, 
says  he  was  prevented  from  visiting  Mount  Hymettus,  two  miles  from 
Athens,  by  the  snows  in  February ;  and  found  woolen  garments  hardly 
sufficient  to  defend  him  from  the  cold  of  the  valleys.  The  rivers  of 
Thrace  also  were  covered  with  ice. 

Another  proof  of  the  decrease  of  cold,  mentioned  by  Dr.  Williams, 
is  that  in  ancient  times,  the  Alps  were  almost  impassable  in  winter,  on 
account  of  the  snow  and  ice  ;  whereas  in  modern  days,  they  are  crossed 
without  uncommon  suflierings.  This  statement  is  a  most  unfortunate 
one  for  the  argument.  It  is  but  three  years  since  the  French  troops 
suflJered  incredible  hardships  in  crossing  Mount  Cenis  into  Italy,  from 
most  violent  storms  of  snow ;  and  the  commander  boeisted  in  his  dis- 

•  See  Horace,  book  ii,  ode  2-5,  26.     Ovid,  Mctam.  lib.  2,  222. 
t  Paul.  Diac.  lib.  22.     Baronius,  Vol.  IX,  272.     Hoveden,  231. 


TEMPERATUBE    OF   WINTER.  131' 

patches  to  the  government,  that  the  republican  troops  had  surmounted 
obstacles  that  appeared  too  great  for  human  efforts.  The  Alps  are 
now,  as  in  Hannibal's  time,  subject  annually  to  severe  cold,  and  violent 
snow  storms ;  although  the  roads  are  doubtless  better,  and  render  a 
passage  less  difficult. 

I  am  however  surprised  that  the  difficulties  which  Hannibal  experi- 
enced from  snow  in  crossing  the  Alps,  should  be  mentioned  in  proof  of 
the  severity  of  the  ancient  winters ;  when  it  is  expressly  related  by 
Livy,  that  no  sooner  had  the  army  reached  the  foot  of  the  mountains  on 
the  Italian  side,  than  the  horses  and  mules  were  turned  out  to  graze,  in 
a  fine  country  and  mild  weather.*  "  Inferiora  valles  et  apricos  quos- 
dam  colles  habent,  rivosque  prope  silvas  et  jam  humano  cultu  digniora 
loca.  Ibi  Jumenta  in  pabulum  missa." — (Liv.  lib.  21,  37.)  This  was 
in  November.  Let  us  see  then  whether  the  climate  of  the  Alps  is 
mitigated. 

In  1789,  Arthur  Young  met  with  a  snow  storm  and  freezing  weather 
in  the  plains  of  Sardinia  on  the  13th  of  December.  The  next  day,  the 
frost  was  severe,  the  snow  deep,  and  ice  five  inches  thick,  near  Alex- 
andria. On  the  21st  he  crossed  Mount  Cenis,  on  snow  ten  feet  deep. 
On  the  25th  he  reached  Chamberry,  and  there  was  a  thaw. — (See  his 
Tour  in  France,  Vol.  I,  516,  527,  530,  537.)  There  is  not  a  shadow 
of  reason  to  suppose  the  least  melioration  of  that  climate  within  two 
thousand  years. 

The  next  series  of  facts  to  prove  a  great  mitigation  of  the  cold  in 
winter,  consists  of  what  authors  have  recorded  of  ancient  Gaul  and 
Germany. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  lib.  4,  relates  that  "  Gaul  is  infested  with  cold  to 
an  extreme  degree.  In  cloudy  weather,  instead  of  rain,  great  snows 
fall ;  and  in  clear  weather,  it  freezes  so  excessively,  that  the  rivers  are 
covered  with  bridges  of  their  own  substance,  over  which  large  armies 
pass  with  their  baggage  and  loaded  wagons.  And  there  being  many 
rivers  in  Gaul,  the  Rhone,  the  Rhine,  &c.,  almost  all  of  them  are  frozen 
over ;  and  it  is  usual,  in  order  to  prevent  falling,  to  cover  the  ice  with 
chaff  and  straw." 

"  North  of  the  Cevennes,"  says  Strabo,  "  Gaul  produces  not  figs  and 
olives ;  and  vines  which  have  been  planted,  bear  not  grapes  that  will 
ripen."— (Lib.  4.) 

"  Colder  than  a  Gallic  winter,"  was  used  by  Petronius  as  a  proverbial 
expression,  says  Hume. — (Essays,  Vol.  I,  459.) 

"  The  Rhine  and  the  Danube,"  says  Gibbon,  "  were  frequently  fro- 
zen, and  capable  of  sustaining  the  most  enormous  weights.  The  bar- 
barians often  chose  the  winter  to  transport  their  armies  and  cavalry 
over  a  vast  and  solid  bridge  of  ice.  Modern  ages  have  not  presented 
an  instance  of  a  like  phenomenon.'''' — (Vol.  I,  ch.  9.) 

The  last  assertion  of  Gibbon  is  contrary  to  all  historical  evidence,  and 
even  to  facts  which  took  place  during  that  author's  life. 

In  opposition  to  Gibbon's  assertion,  I  affirm  then,  that  both  the  Rhine 
and  the  Danube  have,  within  three  centuries,  been  frequently  covered 

*  The  mountains  were  covered  with  snow,  but  the  rivers  of  Italy  were  not  cov- 
ered with  ice.    The  Po,  the  Ticino  and  the  Trebia  were  crossed  by  bridges. 


132  ON  THE  SUPPOSED  CHANGE  IN  THE 

with  ice  sufficient  to  sustain  the  largest  armies  that  ever  issued  from  the 
north. 

Dr.  Williams  has  copied  these  remarks  of  Gibbon  ;  and  it  is  a  most 
unfortunate  circumstance  for  the  author  and  the  transcriber,  that  the 
very  winter  after  Dr.  Williams  published  his  History  of  Vermont,  the 
French  troops  crossed  the  Rhine  into  Holland  on  the  ice.  The  rivers 
and  canals  were  all  converted  into  bridges  in  January,  1795. — (See  the 
speech  of  citizen  Paulus  to  the  provisional  convention,  January  26 ; 
State  Papers,  Vol.  III.)  The  cold  was  unusually  severe;  the  event 
was  an  uncommon  one  ;  but  it  is  one  that  happens  in  hard  winters,  a 
few  of  which  occur  every  century.* 

It  appears  by  interrogatories  made  by  the  Stadtholder  on  the  18th  of 
January,  1795,  to  his  naval  officers,  that  the  Prince  could  not  escape 
from  Holland  by  any  of  the  rivers  of  that  country — the  eastern  and 
western  Ems,  the  Elbe  and  the  Weser,  being  obstructed  by  ice. — (State 
Papers,  Vol.  III.) 

With  respect  to  the  other  part  of  Gibbon's  assertion,  that  the  barbari- 
ans chose  the  winter  season  to  make  inroads  into  southern  countries, 
because  they  could  pass  on  the  ice,  I  can  readily  believe  this  might 
have  happened  many  times.  From  his  acquaintance  with  the  original 
historians,  he  was  certainly  well  qualified  to  make  the  assertion.  Some 
instances  of  this  fact  are  recorded.  I  find  in  Cesar's  History  of  the  Gal- 
lic War  no  instance  of  this  sort ;  but  many  instances  of  Roman  armies 
and  barbarians  crossing  the  great  rivers  on  bridges.  Cesar  was  obliged 
to  build  bridges,  at  two  or  three  different  times,  to  throw  his  troops  over 
the  Rhine.  Had  the  freezing  of  that  river  been  an  annual  event,  he 
would  have  taken  the  advantage  of  a  bridge  of  ice. 

That  the  Rhine  did  not  freeze  every  winter,  we  have  positive  evi- 
dence, in  the  4th  book  of  the  Gallic  War.  During  the  winter  of  the 
year  55  before  the  Christian  era,  two  German  nations  attempted  to  in- 
vade Gaul,  but  were  prevented  by  the  want  of  boats.  They  employed 
a  stratagem,  and  took  possession  of  the  boats  belonging  to  the  people 
or  nation  that  inhabited  the  banks  of  that  river,  and  by  this  means  pass- 
ed over,  and  subsisted  for  the  remaining  part  of  the  winter,  on  the  pro- 
visions they  found  on  the  other  side.  If  the  freezing  of  that  river  was  a 
very  common  event,  it  is  singular  that  Cesar,  in  all  his  wars  in  the  ad- 
jacent countries,  had  not  one  occasion  to  mention  the  circumstance. 

Cesar,  in  his  7th  book  of  the  Gallic  War,  mentions  a  winter  campaign 
he  made  to  quell  an  insurrection  in  the  south  of  France.  He  was  obli- 
ged to  cross  Mount  Cebenna,  now  Cevennes,  Languedoc,  cutting  a  way 
through  snow  six  feet  deep.  From  this  description  of  the  snow,  a  su- 
perficial reader  would  draw  the  conclusion  that  the  climate  was  intensely 
cold.  Yet  this  was  not  the  fact ;  for  the  river  Loire,  in  the  neighbor- 
hood, was  not  frozen  so  as  to  sustain  troops ;  and  in  the  siege  of  the 
town  of  Avaricus,  Cesar  relates  that  the  town  was  protected  by  a  river 
and  a  morass. 

The  truth  is,  the  mountain  where  the  snow  was  then  six  feet  deep  is 
high,  and  is  annually  covered  with  deep  snow  in  this  age ;  while  the 

'  *  This  event  happened  so  opportunely  for  the  purposes  of  the  French,  that  even 
atheista  were  di8po<)ccl  to  admit  the  existence  of  a  God,  for  the  purpose  of  arranging 
this  event  among  the  interpositions  of  heaven  in  their  favor. 


r 


TEMPERATURE   OF   WINTER.  133 

plains  below  enjoy  a  fine  warm  climate,  that  brings  figs  and  olives  to 
perfection.  For  these  facts,  I  have  the  authority  of  Busching,  (abridg. 
Vol.  V,)  and  Arthur  Young.  Pinkerton  describes  the  snows  of  these 
mountains  in  the  following  terms.  "  These  mountains  are  in  winter 
exposed  to  dreadful  snowy  hurricanes,  called  acirs,  which,  in  a  few 
hours,  obliterate  the  ravins  and  even  the  precipices,  and  descending  to 
the  paths  and  streets,  confine  the  inhabitants  to  their  dwellings,  till  a 
communication  can  be  opened  with  their  neighbors,  sometimes  in  the 
form  of  an  arch  under  the  vast  mass  of  snow."  This  surely  proves  no 
moderation  of  the  winters  in  France. 

But  let  us  attend  to  the  vegetables  which  in  the  Augustan  age  flour- 
ished in  Gaul.     These,  after  all,  are  our  safest  guides. 

Strabo  says,  Gaul  produces  not  figs  and  olives  north  of  the  Cevennes ; 
and  grapes  do  not  come  to  maturity.* 

Diodorus  Siculus  goes  further,  and  asserts  that  Gaul  produces  neither 
figs  nor  olives. — (Lib.  5.) 

Strabo  is  correct,  as  to  figs  and  olives  ;  for  they  will  not  come  to  per- 
fection, at  this  day,  north  of  the  Cevennes. 

Diodorus  Siculus  is  an  author  of  less  credit,  and  in  the  instance  before 
us,  we  have  proof  of  his  inaccuracy. 

Pliny,  whose  authority  in  this  case  must  be  indisputable,  expressly 
mentions  the  wine  made  in  Auvei'gne,  Languedoc,  Dauphiny,  Burgundy, 
and  French  Compte.  "  Jam  inventa  vitis  per  se  in  vino  picem  resipiens 
Vinnensem  agrum  nobilitans,  Arverno,  Sequanoque,  et  Helvico  generi- 
bus  non  pridem  illustrata." — (Lib.  14,  cap.  1.)  This  species  of  vine, 
he  observes,  was  unknown  ninety  years  before,  in  the  age  of  Virgil ; 
and  consequently  was  not  known  to  Diodorus  Siculus,  who  was  cotem- 
porary  with  Virgil.  Strabo  lived  somewhat  later,  and  had  more  correct 
information.  This  wine  constituted  the  glory  of  that  part  of  France 
formerly  inhabited  by  the  Allobroges,  now  called  Dauphiny  and  Vien- 
nois,  extending  on  the  east  side  of  the  Rhone,  from  the  Lemanic  lake 
to  its  mouth,  and  was  highly  valued  at  Rome. 

Pliny  expressly  mentions  a  species  of  the  olive  which  thrived  in  Gaul 
beyond  the  Alps.  "  Quee  nunc  provenit  trans  Alpes,  quoque,  et  in  Gal- 
lias,  Hispaniasque  medias." — (Lib.  15,  1.) 

Strabo  says  the  olive  will  not  produce  fruit,  to  the  north  of  the  Ceven- 
nes. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  limits  of  the  olive  region,  here  designated, 
are  precisely  those  to  which  that  tree  is  now  confined.  The  line,  be- 
yond which  olives  will  not  produce  fruit,  as  marked  by  Arthur  Young, 
begins  at  the  foot  of  the  Pyrenees,  in  Rousillon,  in  the  forty  second 
degree  of  latitude,  thence  runs  northeast,  through  Languedoc,  to  the 
southward  of  the  Cevennes,  crosses  the  Rhone  at  Montelimart,  and  pur- 
sues its  direction,  near  Grenoble,  towards  Savoy,  where  it  terminates. 

*  It  is  well  known  that  there  are  many  varieties  of  grapes,  and  some  far  less  har- 
dy than  others.  The  Romans  might  attempt  to  propagate,  in  the  north  of  France, 
some  varieties  which  thrived  well  in  the  south,  and  in  Italy,  but  which  would  not 
come  to  maturity  in  a  climate  eight  or  ten  degrees  farther  north ;  and  from  some 
instances  of  failure,  might  conclude  that  no  vines  would  come  to  perfection  in  that 
country.  I  believe  there  are  many  varieties  now  cultivated  in  Italy  and  Greece, 
which  would  not  come  to  perfection  in  the  north  of  France. 


134  ON  THE  SUPPOSED  CHANGE  IN  THE 

This  district  then  includes  part  of  Rousillon,  part  of  Languedoc,  most 
of  Dauphiny,  and  all  Provence.  Olives  grow  and  mature  there  precise- 
ly within  the  limits  marked  by  Strabo  and  Pliny,  and  as  far  as  we  can 
judge,  not  a  league  further  north  than  they  did  eighteen  hundred  years 

ago- 

1  am  willing  to  rest  the  whole  argument  on  this  fact.  It  is  possible 
that  the  clearing  and  cultivation  of  particular  places,  by  removing  mois- 
ture, may  enable  the  moderns  to  raise  particular  plants,  as  the  vine,  for 
example,  in  those  places,  where  the  ancients  could  not.  But  I  do  not 
find,  in  history,  any  evidence  that  a  change  of  cHmate  generally  has 
carried  any  of  the  delicate  fruits  into  latitudes  where  they  did  not  thrive 
in  the  earliest  ages.  If  any  climate  has  become  warmer  by  seventeen 
degrees,  it  would  admit  plants  to  be  removed  northward  about  ten  de- 
grees of  latitude.  For  instance,  the  mean  temperature  of  South  Caro- 
lina is  66°  by  Fahrenheit ;  that  in  Connecticut,  is  about  49°,  precisely 
the  difference  supposed  by  Dr.  Williams  to  have  taken  place  in  the  cli- 
mate of  Italy.  The  difference  between  the  latitudes  of  Carolina  and 
Connecticut  is  about  ten  degrees.  Ten  degrees  of  latitude  then  give  sev- 
enteen degrees  difference  of  temperature.  If  then  olives  grew  in  the 
south  of  France,  eighteen  centuries  ago,  and  the  climate  has  become 
warmer  by  seventeen  degrees,  olives  may  have  the  same  temperature 
now  in  53^  of  latitude,  that  they  formerly  had  in  43°.  Of  course  they 
would  thrive  in  Westphalia,  Saxony  and  Prussia.  Instead  of  which  that 
tree  is  limited  to  Dauphiny  and  Languedoc,  as  it  was  at  the  Christian  era. 

The  Roman  writers  speak  of  Gaul  as  a  cold  country.  It  certainly 
was  colder  than  Italy,  Greece,  Africa,  and  Syria,  the  countries  which 
were  visited  by  the  Romans,  before  they  crossed  the  Alps.  Accustom- 
ed  to  those  mild  climates,  they  were  surprised  at  the  rigorous  winters 
of  Gaul  and  Germany.  They  described  the  mountains  of  Thrace  also, 
as  covered  with  eternal  snow ;  yet  Thrace  was  a  fine  country,  and 
vines  flourished  on  the  borders  of  the  Hellespont.  The  mountains  were 
cold  in  winter,  in  Italy,  Gaul,  and  Thrace ;  but  the  growth  of  certain 
delicate  plants,  in  those  countries,  is  a  better  criterion  of  the  real  tem- 
perature of  the  climates,  than  the  descriptions  of  poets  and  historians. 

The  winters  in  Gaul  were  colder  than  in  England,  according  to  the 
express  testimony  of  Caesar. — (Lib.  5.)  So  they  are  at  this  day.  If  the 
general  temperature  of  Europe  has  moderated  in  eighteen  hundred 
years,  Britain,  though  an  island,  must  have  shared  in  the  mitigation  of 
cold.  Yet  we  can  not  admit  any  considerable  change  on  that  island  ; 
for  Tacitus,  Life  of  Agricola,  12,  expressly  declares  that  it  enjoyed  a 
moderate  climate  in  his  days, — "  Asperitas  frigoris  abest."  The  mean 
temperature  of  England  now  is  about  48°.  If  the  cold  has  moderated 
within  eighteen  centuries,  as  much  as  Dr.  Williams  supposes  it  has  in 
other  European  countries,  the  climate  formerly  must  have  been  intol- 
erably cold,  contrary  to  the  testimony  of  Tacitus. 

Another  argument  in  favor  of  a  great  mitigation  of  cold  in  Europe, 
used  by  Buffon,  and  copied  by  Gibbon  and  Dr.  Williams,  is  the  retire- 
ment of  the  Rane*  (deer)  from  the  south  of  Europe,  the  Pyrenees  and 

*ThU  is  the  trae  name  of  this  animal,  by  an  egregious  corruption  called  rein- 
deer. 


TEMPERATtTKE    OF    WINTER.  135 

the  forests  of  Germany,  into  the  colder  regions  of  Norway  and  Russia. 
BufFon  asserts  that  this  animal  will  not  multiply  and  can  not  subsist, 
south  of  the  Baltic. 

I  consider  this  argument  as  very  fallacious.  The  rane  seeks  the 
forest,  and  flies  before  the  ax  of  the  cultivator,  like  the  bear,  the  com- 
mon deer,  and  the  Indian  of  America.  How  can  the  deer  subsist  in 
open  fields  ?  We  might  as  well  expect  a  fish  to  live  in  air,  as  the  rane 
in  a  country  destitute  of  woods,  and  frequented  by  man.  The  Hyrca- 
nian  forest  no  longer  exists ;  the  husbandman  has  deprived  that  animal 
of  his  shelter,  his  food,  his  element.  He  does  not  like  the  company  of 
man,  and  has  abandoned  the  cultivated  parts  of  Europe.  It  is  just  so 
with  the  common  deer  of  North  America,  the  bear,  and  other  wild  ani- 
mals. The  deer  used  to  be  found  along  our  sea-coast,  and  on  the 
neighboring  islands  ;  but  for  fifty  miles  from  the  shore,  at  this  day,  not 
a  deer  is  to  be  found  ;*  and  in  a  century,  not  a  bear  nor  a  deer  will  be 
seen  on  the  south  of  the  lakes.  But  will  any  man  ascribe  this  desertion 
of  the  country  to  their  love  of  cold  ?  Not  at  all.  It  is  their  love  of  the 
wild  forest,  and  not  of  cold,  which  impels  them  to  recede  before  the 
arts  of  cultivation.  How  could  the  rane  subsist  in  an  open,  cultivated 
country,  when  it  is  well  known  that  his  favorite  food  is  a  species  of 
lichen  [rangiferinus]  which  grows  only  or  chiefly  on  heaths  and  uncul- 
tivated hilly  grounds  ?  Instead  of  proving  a  change  of  climate,  the 
retirement  of  the  rane  seems  to  have  been  the  natural  consequence  of 
cultivation. t 

But  Gibbon's  assertion  that  the  Rhine  and  the  Danube,  in  modern 
ages,  have  not  been  covered  with  ice,  strong  enough  to  sustain  loaded 
carriages,  must  not  pass  uncontradicted.  I  know  not  what  ages  pre- 
cisely, that  author  intended  to  include  in  the  description  of  modern  ; 
but  both  the  rivers  mentioned  have  often  sustained  men  and  carriages 
on  the  ice  within  the  last  tico  centuries,  as  well  as  in  preceding  ages. 
In  821  and  994,  history  expressly  mentions  this  to  have  been  the  fact. 
In  1233,  the  rivers  in  Italy  sustained  the  heaviest  loads  on  the  ice  ;  of 
course  the  Rhine  and  Danube  must  have  done  the  same.  The  fact  is 
also  recorded  of  the  5'ear  1306  ;  and  in  1363  the  Rhine  was  covered 
with  solid  ice  for  ten  weeks.  In  1402  the  Baltic  was  passable  on  the 
ice  for  six  weeks ;  and  we  may  well  suppose  the  Rhine  and  Danube 
were  not  open.  I  have  no  particular  account  of  the  effects  of  the  rig- 
orous cold  of  1608,  1610,  1664,  1684,  1698,  1709,  1716,  1740,  1763, 
1776,  on  those  particular  rivers  ;  but  the  general  accounts  describe 
these  and  many  other  winters,  during  the  last  two  centuries,  as  convert- 
ing all  rivers  into  highways  for  carriages,  even  as  far  south  as  Italy  and 
Spain.  But  I  have  better  proof  of  the  fact.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
winters  in  England  are  much  milder  than  in  the  same  latitude  on  the 
continent.  This  is  always  the  case,  and  an  undeniable  fact.  Now  I 
have  accounts  that  the  Thames  at  London  has  been  covered  with  solid 
ice,  equal  to  the  support  of  the  heaviest  loads,  not  only  in  most  of  the 

*  These  animals  found  shelter  in  the  immense  barren  plain  on  Long  Island ; 
and  are  not  yet  driven  from  that  spot  by  the  hunters. 

t  King  Alfred,  in  relating  the  story  of  Octher,  who  seems  to  have  been  a  native 
of  Sweden  or  l.apiand,  mentions  six  hundred  ranes  as  a  part  of  his  wealth,  and 
speaks  of  the  animal  as  if  he  had  never  before  heard  of  it. — (Alf.  Oros.  lib.  1.) 


136  ON  THE  SUPPOSED  CHANGE  IN  THE 

years  mentioned,  but  in  many  others,  during  the  last  two  centuries. 
From  ten  to  fifteen  or  twenty  rigorous  winters  occur,  in  every  century, 
which  convert  most  of  the  small  rivers  of  Germany,  France  and  Eng- 
land into  highways  ;  and  several  winters,  in  every  century,  produce  the 
same  effect  in  all  the  large  rivers. 

No  longer  ago  than  1717,  when  Lady  Montague  traveled  from  Vi- 
enna to  Constantinople,  in  the  midst  of  winter,  the  navigation  of  the 
Danube  was  interrupted  by  the  ice.  In  a  letter  dated  at  Belgrade, 
Feb.  12,  O.  S.  1717,  that  lady  says:  "The  weather  is  colder  than  I 
believe  it  ever  was  any  where  but  in  Greenland  :  we  have  a  very  large 
stove  constantly  kept  hot,  and  yet  the  windows  of  the  room  are  frozen 
on  the  inside."  Between  the  date  of  that  letter  and  the  first  of  April, 
O.  S.  she  pursued  her  journey  to  Adrianople,  during  which  time,  that  is 
in  March,  she  expressly  says,  "  The  Danube  was  now  frozen  over." — 
(See  her  Letter  of  April  1.) 

This  was  not  a  winter  of  the  greatest  severity,  though  in  England 
something  colder  than  ordinary. — (See  Short  on  Air,  Vol.  II,  20.)  The 
preceding  winter  had  converted  all  rivers  into  bridges,  even  in  Italy. 
What  shall  we  then  say  to  the  assertions  of  such  celebrated  men  as 
Gibbon  ?  and  what  shall  we  think  of  the  modern  philosophy,  erected 
on  the  authority  of  a  few  superficial  inquiries  ? 

The  climate  at  Constantinople  is  milder  than  on  the  Danube  ;  and  in 
January,  1718,  Lady  Montague  sat  with  her  window  open,  enjoying  a 
fine  warm  sun. — (Letter  38.)  But  this  was  an  uncommon  occurrence. 
In  1751,  the  people  of  Constantinople  predicted  the  plague  which  raged 
terribly  that  year,  from  the  great  snows  of  the  preceding  winter. — 
(Chenier's  Morocco,  Vol.  II,  275.)  Indeed  one  single  fact  will  demon- 
strate that  the  air  at  Constantinople  is  usually  in  winter  below  freezing 
point ;  which  is,  that  winter  always  puts  an  end  to  the  ravages  of  the 
plague — an  event  that  rarely,  if  ever,  takes  place  there  without  frost. 
But  Constantinople  is  subject  also  to  severe  frosts,  in  hard  winters,  like 
all  other  northern  countries  ;  although  the  weather  there,  from  the  vi- 
cinity of  the  city  to  large  bodies  of  water,  is  much  less  severe  than  in 
Hungary,  Austria  and  Germany. 

Men  are  led  into  numberless  errors  by  drawing  general  conclusions 
from  particular  facts.  "  Lady  Montague  sat  with  her  window  open  in 
January,  1718,  and  therefore  there  is  little  or  no  winter  in  Constantino- 
ple," is  very  bad  logic.  The  farmers  on  Connecticut  River  plowed 
their  lands,  as  I  saw,  in  February,  1779 ;  and  the  peaches  blossomed 
in  Pennsylvania.  What  then  ?  Are  the  winters  all  mild  in  America  ? 
Not  at  all ;  in  the  very  next  year,  not  only  our  rivers,  but  our  bays,  and 
the  ocean  itself,  on  our  coast,  were  fast  bound  with  ice. 

In  1592,  the  drouth  was  so  severe  that  the  Thames  was  fordable  at 
London.  In  1388,  the  Rhine  was  fordable  at  Cologne ;  and  in  1473, 
the  Danube  was  fordable  in  Hungary,  Suppose  in  some  future  age, 
these  facts  should  be  alledged  as  evidence  of  a  wonderful  increase  of 
rains  and  moist  weather,  within  the  two  last  centuries  ;  would  such  con- 
clusions be  just  ?  Yet  this  is  the  reasoning  which  has  principally  sup- 
ported the  hypothesis  of  a  modern  diminution  of  cold  in  winter.  Au- 
thors have  mentioned  and  described  the  severe  winters,  while  ordinary 
seasons  have  passed  unnoticed  ;  and  this  is  the  source  of  a  great  error 
in  philosophy. 


TEMPEHATURE    OF   WINTER.  137 

But  scanty  as  our  materials  are  for  a  history  of  the  seasons  in  anti- 
quity, we  have  a  direct  authority  that  mild  winters  occurred  in  the  lati- 
tude of  Constantinople,  more  than  two  thousand  years  ago. 

Hippocrates,  during  the  plague  in  Athens,  B.  C.  430,  resided  on  the 
island  of  Thasus,  which  is  in  the  ^gean  Sea,  near  the  coast  of  Thrace, 
a  cool  country,  and  near  the  latitude  41°.  This  author  has  left  a  minute 
description  of  the  seasons  for  four  years,  with  the  current  diseases. 
The  first  of  these  winters  was  mild  like  spring,  with  southerly  toinds. 
The  second  winter  northerly  winds  prevailed,  and  great  rains,  attended 
with  snow.  This  seems  to  have  been  a  common  season.  The  third 
winter,  the  weather  was  northerly,  the  cold  severe,  and  the  snow  deep. 
This  seems  to  have  been  a  liard  winter,  and  if  I  am  not  deceived  in  the 
chronology  of  events,  this  was  within  a  few  months  of  the  appearance 
of  a  comet,  and  the  great  eruption  of  Etna  mentioned  by  Thucydides. 
The  fourth  winter  was  mild,  with  southerly  wind,  except  a  period  of 
severe  cold  about  the  equinox,  in  March. 

This  authority  is  indisputable,  that  the  winters  in  ancient  times  were, 
as  they  are  now,  irregular  and  various  ;  and  instead  of  being  uniform- 
ly rigorous,  some  were  mild  as  spring. 

In  later  periods,  I  find  occasional  mention  of  mild  winters,  although 
little  notice  has  been  taken  of  seasons,  except  when  extraordinary  for 
cold.  The  winter  of  802  was  southerly,  mild  weather,  followed  by 
the  plague.  Mild  winters  are  also  mentioned  in  1186,*  1247,  1280, 
1284,  1428,  in  some  of  which  people  wore  summer  clothes  the  whole 
winter ;  and  in  one  instance  harvest,  in  northern  latitudes,  was  in  May, 
in  consequence  of  the  warm  weather  in  the  winter  preceding.  These 
winters  were  antecedent  to  any  great  improvements  in  agriculture  in 
Europe. 

It  may  not  be  improper  here  to  introduce  a  fact  related  by  Theo- 
phrast,  of  a  change  of  temperature  in  Thessaly. 

The  river  Peneus  winds  through  a  charming  valley  in  Thessaly,  and 
between  the  mountains  Olympus  and  Ossa,  finds  a  passage  to  the 
iEgean  Sea.  This  passage,  the  ancients  alledged,  was  opened  by  an 
earthquake ;  before  which  the  valley  was  covered  with  stagnant  water. 
The  draining  of  this  valley  is  said  to  have  rendered  the  country  more 
healthy,  but  at  the  same  time,  the  air  became  colder.  In  proof  of  this, 
authors  alledge  that  olives,  which  before  had  flourished  about  Larissa, 
would  not  endure  the  severity  of  the  winters,  after  the  valley  was 
drained,  and  vines  were  often  frozen,  which  before  was  never  known  to 
happen. — (See  Anacharsis,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  341.) 

Whatever  foundation  may  exist  for  this  opinion,  it  seems  the  inhabit- 
ants had  an  idea  that  their  climate  had  become  colder,  instead  of 
warmer  ;  and  it  is  well  known  that  places  surrounded  by  water  have  a 
milder  climate,  than  others  remote  from  water.  This,  by  the  way,  is 
the  principal  reason  why  Greece  and  Italy  are  more  temperate  than 
other  countries  under  the  same  parallels  of  latitude. 

Let  us  now  attend  to  the  evidence  of  a  mitigation  of  the  cold  of 
American  winters.  The  first  proof  adduced  by  Dr.  Williams,  is  what 
Kalm  says,  that  on  the  first  settlement  of  Philadelphia,  the  Delaware 

*  See  my  History  of  Pestilential  Diseases,  under  the  year  1186.    '  '"  "f^ 
18 


138  ON  THE  SUPPOSED  CHANGE  IN  THE 

was  commonly  covered  with  ice  about  the  middle  of  November,  old 
style,  corresponding  with  the  last  week  of  the  month,  in  new  style. 
But,  says  our  author,  "  it  is  not  now  commonly  covered  with  ice  till  the 
first  week  in  January." — (Hist.  Vermont,  p.  58.) 

Unfortunately  for  the  argument,  that  river  has  been  covered  with  ice 
for  three  years  last  past,  not  only  by  the  middle  of  November,  old 
style,  but  in  one  or  two  of  the  years,  by  the  middle  of  that  month,  in 
new  style. 

Dr.  Williams  quotes  Smith's  History  of  New  York,  to  prove  his  doc- 
trine ;  the  page  is  not  mentioned,  but  I  suppose  the  passage  to  be  a  note 
in  the  margin  of  page  82,  where  the  author  says,  "  the  climate  of  late 
is  much  altered,  and  this  day,  Feb.  14,  1756,  three  hundred  recruits 
sailed  from  New  York  for  the  army  at  Albany,  and  last  year  a  sloop 
went  up  the  river  a  month  earlier." 

It  is  thus  men  are  misled  by  founding  general  opinions  on  particular 
facts.  The  truth  I  find  to  be,  that  at  the  period  mentioned,  there  were 
two  or  three  winters  in  succession,  the  most  mild  that  were  recollected 
by  the  oldest  men ;  and  all  the  world  cried  out,  what  a  change  of  cli- 
mate !  A  few  years  however  changed  the  common  opinion,  and  a  few 
such  winters  as  1780,  1784,  1796,  1797,  1798,  and  1804,  will  leave 
very  little  room  to  believe  in  a  change  of  climate. 

Smith,  however,  when  lie  wrote  the  foregoing  note,  was  writing  in 
the  text  of  his  history,  that  Governor  Fletcher  sailed  from  New  York 
for  Albany  on  February  13th  or  14th,  in  1693.  This  certainly  was  a 
rare  event,  but  it  should  have  made  him  doubtful  at  least  of  a  change 
of  climate.  Another  fact  cited  by  Dr.  Williams,  is,  that  Baron  Lahon- 
tau  put  to  sea  from  Quebec  in  1690,  on  the  20lh  of  November,  new 
style,  the  like  of  which  had  never  been  known  in  that  place  before. 
The  St.  Lawrence  had  been  covered  with  ice  on  the  14th  of  Novem- 
ber, but  was  cleared  by  a  sudden  thaw.  Yet  what  conclusion  can  be 
drawn  from  the  fact.?  Simply  this,  that  the  seasons  then  were  some- 
times very  variable,  as  they  are  now.  But  Dr.  Williams  infers  from 
this  passage  of  history,  that  the  St.  Lawrence  was,  in  former  times, 
usually  closed  with  ice  by  the  middle  of  November;  whereas  in  mod- 
ern days,  he  says,  it  is  not  frozen  over  till  the  latter  end  of  December 
or  beginning  of  January.  But  this  inference  is  probably  drawn  from 
some  mild  winters.  In  one  fourth  of  our  winters,  the  Hudson,  Dela- 
ware, and  Connecticut,  are  closed  with  ice  in  the  42d  and  43d  degree 
of  latitude,  as  early  as  the  last  week  in  November,  or  first  week  in  De- 
cember ;  and  it  is  against  all  probability  that  the  St.  Lawrence,  in  the 
46th  degree,  continues  open  a  month  later. 

In  proof  of  his  opinion.  Dr.  Williams  cites  a  passage  from  Wood's 
Prospect,  a  work  written  in  the  early  settlement  of  this  country,  which 
says,  that  the  winters  then  began  in  Decemter,  and  continued  to  Feb- 
ruary 21,  (new  style,)  when  the  rivers  and  bays  were  unlocked  by 
warm  weather ;  the  duration  of  winter  then  was  two  months  or  ten 
weeks.  This  is  mentioned  to  have  been  a  very  regular  occurrence  for 
ten  or  twelve  years. 

From  this  passage,  the  author  concludes  the  bays  about  Boston,  on 
the  first  settlement  of  New  England,  must  have  been  "  annually  cover- 
ed with  ice,"  and  that  this  bridge  lasted  through  the  winter  months ; 


TEMPERATURE    OF   WINTER. 


idd 


whereas  in  these  days,  this  is  not  a  regular  event,  nor  when  frozen, 
does  the  ice  continue  so  long.  From  data  which  he  supposes  sufficient- 
ly correct,  he  concludes  that  our  climate  has  suflered  a  melioration  in 
winter  of  ten  or  twelve  degrees. 

But  we  have  here  another  instance  of  the  fallacy  of  such  general 
conclusions.  In  the  first  place  Wood  does  not  say  that  during  the  ten 
weeks  of  winter,  the  ice  was  never  broken  up  by  thaws,  as  it  is  in  mod- 
ern times ;  on  the  other  hand,  his  expressions  fairly  intimate  that  such 
thaws  were  common ;  for  he  observes  that  about  the  21st  of  Februaiy, 
the  rivers  and  bays  are  unlocked,  and  "  are  never  again  frozen  the 
same  year."  This  expression  doubtless  alludes  to  the  well  known  and 
common  occurrence,  that  rivers,  cleared  of  ice  at  an  earlier  period, 
were  covered  with  ice  again,  in  the  same  winter. 

But  that  such  thaws  occurred,  at  that  period,  I  have  direct  proof 
from  Winthrop's  Journal.  In  1634,  December  4th,  old  style,  a  vio- 
lent snow  storm  was  followed  by  a  severe  frost  that  covered  Boston 
bay  with  ice  in  two  days,  but  "  it  was  free  again  before  night."  In  the 
middle  of  January,  a  pinnace  came  to  Boston  from  Port  Royal ;  and 
about  the  end  of  the  month,  a  boat  coming  from  Deer's  Island  was  de- 
tained at  Bird's  Island  ;  and  also  others  were  detained  at  an  island  in 
the  harbor  by  the  ice,  which  was  not  sufficient  to  bear  a  man.  After 
that  the  ice  was  firm  for  two  or  three  weeks.  This  was  no  uncommon 
occurrence  ;  a  "  January  thaw"  is  a  proverb  handed  down  to  us  from 
our  ancestors.  That  was  a  hard  winter,  yet  many  persons  fell  through 
the  ice  and  were  drowned. 

But  our  ancestors  had  also  mild  winters,  which  made  little  or  no  ice 
in  rivers  or  bays.  Such  was  the  winter  of  1633-4,  next  preceding 
that  last  mentioned.  Winthrop  says  expressly,  "  this  winter  was  mild, 
little  wind,  and  most  south  and  southwest."  The  last  of  February,  fell 
a  deep  snow,  but  the  winter  was  at  an  end.  This  is  decisive  evidence 
that  the  winters  have  been  from  the  first  settlement  of  America  varia- 
ble, now  mild,  now  severe,  just  as  they  are  in  the  present  age. 

In  1635,  Connecticut  River  was  closed  with  ice  November  15,  old 
style,  [26,]  at  Hartford,  but  at  Saybrook  not  till  December  10th,  [21.] 
This  wis  a  severe  winter. 

A  ship  from  Bristol  entered  Boston  Bay  in  January,  1637,  and  by 
stress  of  weather  was  driven  into  Plymouth  harbor. 

In  1638,  on  the  13th  of  January,  old  style,  [the  24th,]  Boston  bar* 
bor  was  open ;  for  thirty  men  went  down  to  Spectacle  Island  to  cut 
wood.  A  snow  storm  arose  in  the  following  night ;  after  that  the  wind 
was  at  northwest  for  two  days,  and  then,  says  Governor  Winthrop,  "  it 
froze  so  hard,  as  the  bay  was  all  frozen  up,  except  a  little  channel." 
By  this  opening  twelve  of  the  men  got  to  the  Governor's  garden ; 
others  escaped  on  the  ice.  Of  this  winter  the  Governor  writes,  "  This 
was  a  very  hard  winter.  The  snow  lay  from  November  4,  [15th,]  to 
March  23d,  [April  3d,]  one  and  an  half  yard  deep  about  the  Massachu- 
setts," &c. — (See  pages  146,  154.)  Let  it  be  observed,  that  in  this 
"  very  hard  winter,"  Boston  harbor  was  open  till  the  24th  of  January. 

Note. — In  page  154,  it  is  said  this  was  in  1637.     But  it  is  immaterial. 

The  winter  of  1641-2,  was  one  of  the  most  rigorous  kind,  like  that 
of  1709,  1741,  and  1780.     It  froze  the  bay  at  Boston  as  far  out  at  sea 


140  ON    THE    SUPPOSED    CHANGE    IN    THE 

as  the  eye  could  reach  ;  loaded  sleds  passed  from  Muddy  River  to  Bos- 
ton. All  the  rivers  in  Virginia,  and  even  Chesapeak  Bay,  were  cover- 
ed with  ice.  These  things  are  recorded  by  Governor  VVinthrop  as  ex- 
traordinary occurrences,  such  as  passing  on  the  ice  from  PuUen's 
Point  and  Muddy  River  to  Boston — a  proof  that  the  several  frosts  sup- 
posed by  Dr.  Williams,  were  not  annual  events.  And  the  Indians  de- 
clared that  a  like  winter  had  not  happened  in  forty  years  preceding. 

The  next  winter  was  milder  than  usual,  and  the  winter  following 
there  was  "  little  rain  and  no  snov/  till  March  3d." — (Winthrop,  pp. 
240,  269,  324.) 

In  an  account  of  the  natives  of  New  England,  written  by  Governor 
Winslow,  and  annexed  to  Dr.  Belknap's  second  volume  of  American 
Biography,  we  have  the  following  description  of  the  climate  of  New 
England,  in  1624 : — "  For  the  temperature  of  the  air,  in  almost  three 
years'  experience,  I  can  scarce  distinguish  New  England  from  Old 
England,  in  respect  to  heat  and  cold,  frost,  snow,  rain,  and  wind." — 
"  Experience  teaches  us  that  if  the  heat  does  exceed  England,  it  is  so 
little  as  must  require  better  judgments  to  discern  it.  As  for  the  winter, 
I  rather  think,  if  there  be  a  difference,  it  is  both  sharper  and  longer  in 
New  England  than  Old  ;  yet  the  want  of  those  comforts  in  one,  which 
I  have  enjoyed  in  the  other,  may  deceive  my  judgment  also." — "  The 
seed-time  beginneth  in  the  midst  of  April,  and  continueth  good  till  the 
midst  of  May."  This  was  written  at  Plymouth,  a  place  whose  heat  in 
summer,  and  cold  in  winter,  is  moderated  by  the  air  from  the  sea.  But 
the  description  does  not  warrant  the  idea  of  excessively  cold  winters. 
Seed-time  was  as  early  then  as  it  is  now. 

In  an  account  of  the  climate,  soil,  and  produce  of  New  England, 
written  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Higgeson,  of  Salem,  in  1629,  we  have  the  fol- 
lowing description  of  the  seasons.  "  In  the  summer  time,  in  the  midst 
of  July  and  August,  it  is  a  good  deal  hotter  than  in  Old  England ;  and 
in  winter,  January  and  February  are  much  colder,  as  they  say  ;  but 
the  spring  and  autumn  are  of  a  middle  temper.  In  the  winter  season, 
for  two  months'  space,  the  earth  is  commonly  covered  with  snow, 
which  is  accompanied  with  sharp,  biting  frosts,  something  more  sharp 
than  in  Old  England,  and  therefore  we  are  forced  to  make  great  fires." 
(Historical  Collections,  Vol.  I,  117.) 

This  description  answers  well  for  the  ordinary  seasons  in  New  Eng- 
land, at  the  close  of  the  18th  century.  The  summers  are  hotter  ;  the 
winters  colder  than  in  England.  A  winter  of  eight  weeks  or  two 
months'  frost,  may  be  considered  as  a  medium  winter,  between  our 
very  mild  and  very  severe  winters. 

From  the  same  narrative,  it  appears  that  maiz  thrived  as  well  then 
as  it  does  now,  in  the  plantations  about  Salem,  and  produced  the  most 
abundant  crops. 

In  a  tract  written  in  1642,  called  "  New  England's  First  Fruits,"  the 
climate  is  thus  represented,  in  answer  to  some  objections  that  had  been 
made  to  the  project  of  settling  the  country.  "  True,  it  is  sometimes 
cold,  when  the  wind  blows  strong  at  northwest ;  but  it  holds  not  long 
together  y  and  then  it  useth  to  he  very  moderate" — (Hist.  Col.  Vol.  I,  249.) 

The  writer  mentions  the  purity  and  wholesomeness  of  the  air,  and 
the  bright,  clear,  fair  weather,  which  are  preferable  to  the  moist,  foggy. 


TEMPERATURE    OF   WINTER.  141 

cold  air  of  Holland  and  England.     This  account  of  the  seasons,  an- 
swers well  to  the  state  of  the  weather  in  our  days. 

But  I  have  a  further  remark  to  make  on  the  passage  cited  from 
Wood's  Prospect.  This  writer  does  not  say  that  Boston  Bay  and 
Charles  River  were  annually  frozen  for  eight  or  ten  weeks.  His  words, 
if  rightly  quoted,  are,  "  For  ten  or  a  dozen  years,  the  weather  hath 
held  himself  to  his  day,  unlocking  his  icy  bays  and  rivers,  which  are 
never  frozen  again  the  same  year."  These  words  do  not  authorize 
Dr.  Williams  to  suppose  the  writer  meant  Boston  Bay  and  Charles 
River  at  Boston.  He  might  have  had  in  view  more  inland  bays  and 
rivers  ;  and  indeed  he  must  have  had  ;  for  it  is  proved  by  Winthrop's 
Journal,  an  unexceptionable  authority,  that  Boston  harbor  was  not 
always  nor  generally  frozen  in  the  midst  of  winter.  If  W^ood  then 
meant  inland  rivers  and  arms  of  the  sea,  his  description  is  exactly  true, 
at  this  day.  I  can  aver,  from  thirty  years'  observation,  that  Connecti- 
cut River  at  Hartford  is  a  bridge  of  ice,  on  an  average,  eight  or  ten 
weeks  in  a  winter ;  rather  more  than  less ;  that  is,  from  the  beginning 
or  middle  of  December  to  the  20th  of  February.  This  is  the  precise 
time  mentioned  by  Wood ;  and  the  passage,  instead  of  favoring  Dr. 
Williams'  opinion,  is  direct  evidence  that  there  has  been  no  sensible 
diminution  of  cold  in  America  since  its  settlement. 

In  Winthrop's  Journal  I  find  a  confirmation  of  this  opinion.  In  page 
23,  there  is  a  remark  like  that  of  Wood  before  cited,  that  "  ever  since 
the  bay  has  been  planted  by  the  English,  viz.  seven  years,  it  hath  been 
observed,  that  at  this  day  [February  10th,  old  style,  1631]  the  frost 
hath  broken  up  every  year."  Fortunately  we  have  in  this  Journal  full 
proof  that  the  remark  was  not  intended  to  represent  the  breaking  up  of 
a  bridge  of  ice  over  the  bay  of  Boston  or  Charles  River. 

On  the  22d  day  of  December,  O.  S.,  Governor  Winthrop  writes  thus  : 
"  Till  this  time  there  was  for  the  most  part,  fair  open  weather,  with  gen- 
tle frosts  in  the  night ;  but  this  day  the  wind  came  northwest  very 
strong,  and  some  snow  withal,  but  so  cold  as  some  had  their  fingers 
frozen — three  of  the  Governor's  servants  coming  in  a  shallop  from  Mis- 
tick,  were  driven  by  the  wind  upon  Noddle's  Island." — (p.  21.)  At 
this  time  then,  the  3d  of  January,  new  style,  there  was  no  ice  in  Charles 
River. 

On  the  26th,  the  Governor  writes,  "  The  rivers  are  frozen  up,  and 
they  of  Charlestown  could  not  come  to  the  sermon  at  Boston,  till  the 
afternoon  at  high  water."  By  this  we  are  to  understand  that  Charles 
River  at  the  ferry  was  full  of  ice,  which  was  removed  by  the  flood  tide, 
so  that  the  river  was  passable  in  boats.  This  was  on  the  6th  of  Janua- 
ry. On  the  28th  of  December,  O.  S.,  [the  8th  of  January,]  seven  per- 
sons, says  the  Governor,  set  sail  in  a  shallop,  from  Boston  for  Ply- 
mouth, and  were  cast  away  on  Cape  Cod.  Boston  harbor  and  bay 
must  then  have  been  open. — (See  pp.  21,  22.) 

On  the  5th  of  February,  O.  S.  [the  16th]  arrived  the  ship  Lyon,  at 
Nantasket.  On  the  8th  [the  19th]  the  Governor  went  aboard  the 
Lyon,  then  lying  by  Long  fstand.  On  the  9th  [20th]  the  Lyon  came 
to  anchor  before  Boston.  On  the  10th,  O.  S.  [21st]  says  Governor 
Winthrop,  "  the  frost  broke  up,  and  after  that,  though  we  had  many 
storms  and  sharp  frost,  yet  they  continued  not,  neither  were  the  waters 


^A  ON    THE    SUPPOSED    CHANGE    IN    THE 

frozen  up  as  before."  The  Governor  then  remarks,  that  for  seven 
years  before,  the  frost  had  broken  up  on  the  same  day  of  the  month. — 
(See  p.  23.) 

This  evidence  is  decisive  to  prove  that  the  breaking  up  of  the  ice, 
•was  not  said  of  the  ice  in  Boston  harbor ;  for  the  Governor  went  down 
to  the  ship  Lyon,  at  Long  Island,  which  is  almost  five  miles  from  the 
town,  and  the  ship  came  to  anchor  before  Boston,  before  the  ice  broke 
up.  Let  it  be  noted  also,  that  the  severe  frost  in  that  year,  set  in  about 
Christmas,  and  broke  up  on  the  21st  of  February;  of  course  it  lasted 
about  eight  weeks,  as  in  modern  times. 

It  is  obvious  therefore  that  Gov.  Winthrop  and  Mr.  Wood,  in  the  pas- 
sages noted,  speak  of  the  breaking  up  of  the  rivers  and  frost  in  the 
country  generally,  and  not  of  the  ice  in  Boston  harbor:  and  it  is  re- 
markable that  the  time  mentioned  is  the  same  as  that  in  which  the  win- 
ter of  New  England,  in  ordinary  seasons,  now  breaks  up,  viz.  about 
the  20th  of  February. 

I  will  only  observe  further  on  this  point,  that  in  Winthrop's  Journal, 
which  comprehends  the  events  of  fourteen  years,  from  the  first  settle- 
ment of  Boston,  from  1630  to  1644,  we  have  positive  evidence  that  Bos- 
ton harbor  was  usually  open,  and  that  vessels  entered  and  departed  in 
the  midst  of  winter.  The  freezing  of  the  bay,  in  the  extremely  severe 
winter  of  1642,  and  the  passing  of  loads  on  the  ice,  are  described  as 
rare  occurrences ;  and  what  is  more  explicit,  Governor  Winthrop  de- 
clares, "  the  frost  was  so  great  and  continual  this  winter,  that  all  the 
bay  was  frozen  over  so  much  and  so  long,  as  the  like,  by  the  Indian 
relation,  had  not  been  these  forty  years."  Yet  this  frost  lasted  only 
from  the  18th  of  January  to  the  21st  of  February,  old  style,  about  five 
weeks. — (See  p.  240.)  This  evidence  is  decisive  of  the  question,  and 
utterly  disproves  the  opinion  of  a  change  of  climate.  On  the  18th  of 
January,  O.  S.  1644,  Boston  harbor  was  open. — (See  p.  321.) 

If  Dr.  Williams  is  unfortunate  in  his  facts,  he  is  still  more  so  in  his 
reasonings  and  deductions.     The  following  is  a  specimen. 

In  1782,  the  river  between  Boston  and  Charlestown  was  frozen,  so  that 
horses  and  sleighs  passed  over,  for  five  or  six  days.  The  ice  was  per- 
manent from  February  2d  to  the  10th.  During  that  time  the  lowest 
point  of  cold  by  Fahrenheit  was  9°,  the  highest  28°,  and  the  mean  tem- 
perature 13°.  From  this  statement  the  Doctor  concludes,  that  the  freez- 
ing of  the  bays  mentioned  by  Wood  about  the  year  1630,  could  not 
take  place  in  a  less  degree  of  cold  than  13°.  He  found  from  seven 
years'  observations,  that  the  mean  temperature  of  December  was,  in 
these  years,  [from  1780  to  1788,]  29°.4 ;  that  of  January,  22°.5,  and 
that  of  February,  23°. 9.  Hence  he  concludes,  that  the  change  of  tem- 
perature at  Boston  since  the  year  1630  must  have  been  from  "  ten  to 
twelve  degrees." 

'  I  confess  myself  surprised  that  so  intelligent  a  man  should  not  have 
observed  the  fallacy  of  this  reasoning.  He  takes  the  mean  o{  seven  or 
eight  severe  cold  days  in  1782,  which  covered  Charles  River  with  ice,  for 
the  standard  by  which  to  estimate  the  cold*of  1630,  and  the  mean  of  the 
whole  lointer^  as  the  standard  of  cold  in  modern  days,  by  which  to  com- 
pare it.  This  mode  of  reasoning  is  all  fallacious.  In  the  first  place,  it 
is  not  true  that  a  mean  degree  of  cold,  answering  to  13°  by  Fahrenheit, 


TEMPERATURE    OF   WINTER.     IU»  143 

is  necessary  to  keep  Charles  River  covered  vv'ith  ice.  The  effect  would 
be  produced  with  a  much  less  degree  of  cold.  Let  the  mercury  sink  to 
10'^  for  five  days,  and  a  bridge  of  ice  would  be  formed.  Then  let  the 
cold  relax,  and  the  mercury  rise  to  30°  for  five  days.  The  mean  tempe- 
rature of  the  whole  ten  days  would  be  20°.  Yet  in  this  case  probably, 
the  ice  would  remain  a  solid  bridge  through  the  whole  time,  notwith- 
standing the  rapid  tides  in  that  river.  And  in  fresh  water,  where  there 
is  no  current,  the  bridge  would  remain  a  much  longer  time,  and  in  much 
milder  weather.  Indeed,  I  can  prove  that  a  river  or  pond  of  water  may 
be  covered  with  twelve  inches  of  solid  ice,  when  the  mean  temperature 
is  not  below  freezing  point.  But  I  will  not  rest  the  argument  on  calcu- 
lations ;  I  appeal  to  facts. 

In  November,  1797,  commenced  a  series' of  severe  cold,  although  the 
beginning  of  the  month  was  as  mild  as  usual.  Towards  the  close  of  the 
month,  the  Hudson,  Delaware  and  Connecticut  were  covered  wit?i  solid 
ice  ;  yet  the  mean  temperature  of  the  whole  month,  at  the  Exchange  at 
New  York,  was  38°. 87  by  Fahrenheit,  almost  seven  degrees  above  the 
freezing  point.  This  fact  exhibits  the  fallacy  of  the  Doctor's  conclu- 
sions,— (See  p.  59,  of  his  History  of  Vermont.) 

In  page  383,  appendix.  Dr.  Williams  states  that  in  America,  where 
the  rivers  are  frozen  to  a  firmness  sufficient  to  sustain  heavy  loads,  the 
"  mean  heat  of  the  winter  is  from  15°  to  20°."  This  is  a  most  egre- 
gious mistake,  and  contradicts  his  own  observations  of  the  weather  be- 
tween 1780  and  1788,  as  before  stated.  The  mean  temperature  of 
those  seven  winters  was,  by  his  own  statement,  25°.2,  and  this  corres- 
ponds nearly  with  the  results  of  Dr.  Holyoke's  seven  years'  observations 
at  Salem,  which  make  the  mean  temperature  of  the  three  winter  months 
25°.76.  With  this  degree  of  cold,  fresh-water  rivers  are  annually  cov- 
ered, and  held  bound  with  solid  ice. 

To  cover  with  ice  salt  streams,  bays  and  arms  of  the  sea,  a  greater 
degree  of  cold  is  requisite,  and  this  degree  occurs  many  times  every 
century. 

If  then  a  mean  temperature  of  25°  or  26°  by  Fahrenheit  will  keep 
the  American  rivers  covered  with  ice  for  many  weeks,  we  have  further 
evidence  that  the  Rhine  and  Danube,  fresh-water  rivers,  must  be  fre- 
quently frozen  in  modern  times.  Dr.  Williams  states  the  mean  degree 
of  cold  at  several  places  in  Europe,  as  follows : 

At  Vienna,  in  1779  and  1780,  {  ^^X'S;,  Vs.^ 
At  Ratisbon,  in  1781  and  1782,  j  '^'^;^;^.^  |»  f^ 

At  Manheim,  in  1781  and  178S,  {  '^^^7^.^  II  '.OS 
From  these  means  he  deduces  the  general  mean  of  31°. 8  for  Janua- 
ry, and  33°.6  for  February,  which,  he  says,  will  accurately  express  the 
temperature  of  a  German  winter  on  those  rivers.  Admit  this  conclu- 
sion, and  what  follows  ?  The  undeniable  consequence  that  a  German 
winter  is  almost  as  cold  as  a  New  England  winter ;  for  the  mean  tem- 
perature of  January  in  Vienna  was  27°. 5  ;  the  mean  temperature  of  an 
American  winter  is  25°. 76.  The  difference  is  only  one  degree  and 
twenty  nine  hundredths.     The  difference  between  the  general  mean  of 


144  ON  THE  SUPPOSED  CHANGE  IN  THE 

January  above  stated,  31°.8,  and  the  general  mean  of  America,  25°.76, 
is  only  5°. 32.  If  the  vibrations  of  heat  and  cold  are  as  great  on  the 
Rhine  and  Danube  as  in  America,  which  is  understood  to  be  the  fact, 
those  rivers  must  be  frozen  every  winter,  although  perhaps  not  suffi- 
ciently in  a  common  winter  to  sustain  loaded  carriages.  Certain  it  is 
that  the  cold  at  Manheim  and  Ratisbon  is  nearly  equal  to  any  thing  ex- 
perienced in  New  England.  In  the  Memoirs  of  the  American  Acad- 
emy, Part  1  of  Vol.  li,  page  88,  Dr.  Holyoke  has  stated  the  greatest 
cold  at  Ratisbon,  by  a  series  of  observations,  to  be  13°.45  below  cipher 
by  Fahrenheit,  and  the  mean  of  the  greatest  colds,  2°. 42  below  cipher. 
At  Manheim,  the  greatest  cold  was  8°.95  below  0,  and  the  greatest  mean 
of  cold  1°.2  above  0.  From  all  which  it  is  obvious  that  no  diminution 
of  cold,  equal  to  16°,  can  have  taken  place  since  the  Goths  and  Van- 
dals invaded  the  Roman  empire,  as  Dr.  Williams  supposes ;  for  the 
cold  which  reduces  the  mercury  by  Fahrenheit's  scale  to  8°  or  10° 
above  cipher,  if  continued  only  two  or  three  days,  must  cover  the  Rhine 
and  Danube  with  solid  ice. 

Before  I  conclude  this  subject,  it  is  proper  to  notice  what  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son has  written  on  the  climate  of  Virginia. — (Notes,  query  7.)  "A 
change  in  our  climate,"  says  this  author,  "  is  taking  place  very  sensibly. 
Both  heats  and  colds  are  become  much  more  moderate,  within  the 
memory  even  of  the  middle  aged.  Snows  are  less  frequent  and  less 
deep.  They  do  not  often  lie  below  the  mountains  more  than  one,  two 
or  three  days,  and  very  rarely  a  week.  The  elderly  inform  me,  the 
earth  used  to  be  covered  with  snow  about  three  months  in  every  year. 
The  rivers  which  then  seldom  failed  to  freeze  over  in  the  course  of  the 
winter,  scarcely  ever  do  so  now.  This  change  has  produced  an  unfor- 
tunate fluctuation  between  heat  and  cold  in  the  spring  of  the  year, 
which  is  fatal  to  fruits." 

What  evidence  there  is  of  a  diminution  of  heat  in  summer,  I  do  not 
know  ;  but  I  find  abundant  evidence  that  no  such  diminution  has  taken 
place.  And  that  no  very  definite  proof  of  the  fact  has  appeared,  is 
very  obvious  from  the  difference  of  opinion  on  the  subject.  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son supposes  a  diminution  of  the  heat  of  summer ;  Dr.  Williams  sup- 
poses a  general  increase  of  heat  in  our  cUmate ;  and  I  leave  them  to 
adjust  the  difference  between  themselves. 

Mr.  Jefferson  seems  to  have  no  authority  for  his  opinions  but  the  ob- 
servations of  elderly  and  middle  aged  people.  But  what  shall  we  say 
to  the  following  facts  ?  Mr.  Jefferson  informs  that  in  Virginia,  the  snow 
used  to  cover  the  earth  about  three  months  in  every  year.  How  shall 
we  reconcile  this  account  with  the  representation  of  the  climate  by  Lord 
Delaware  and  Sir  Thomas  Gates,  a  few  years  after  Virginia  was  first 
planted,  A.  D.  1611  or  1612.''  In  that  account  it  is  expressly  stated, 
that  "  the  soil  is  favorable  for  the  cultivation  of  vines,  sugar-canes, 
oranges,  lemons,  almonds  and  rice — the  winters  are  so  mild  that  the  cat- 
tle can  get  their  food  abroad,  and  swine  can  be  fatted  on  wild  fruits. — 
(See  Purchas,  Vol.  V,  1758 :  Belknap's  Biography,  Vol.  II,  39.) 

If  this  description  of  the  climate  is  just,  the  seasons  in  Virginia  were 
then  just  what  they  are  now.  In  ordinary  winters,  cattle  and  swine 
will  get  their  living  in  the  woods  ;  but  in  severe  winters,  they  are  liable 
to  perish. 


■th      TEMPERATURE    OF   WINTER.  •  145 

Perhaps  Mr.  Jefferson's  observations  refer  to  the  interior  and  moun- 
tainous parts  of  the  state,  where  by  the  clearing  of  the  lands,  the  win- 
ters may  have  become  less  steady,  and  the  snows  less  durable  ;  but  this 
is  no  proof  of  a  general  diminution  of  cold  in  the  winter ;  it  proves 
only  more  variable  weather.  The  description  given  by  the  first  settlers 
about  one  hundred  and  ninety  years  ago,  is  decisive  evidence  that  the 
general  temperature  of  the  climate  was  then  the  same  as  it  is  now ; 
and  that  in  its  rude  state,  Virginia  produced  the  delicate  tropical  fruits, 
as  far  north  as  they  can  be  cultivated  at  this  day.  Had  there  been  a 
general  increase  of  heat  in  our  climate,  the  cultivation  of  the  fig  and 
the  olive  would  have  advanced  northward  to  Pennsylvania  or  New  Eng- 
land ;  but  instead  of  this,  not  a  plant  has  advanced  a  single  league  since 
the  first  settlement  of  the  country. 

To  the  testimony  of  Lord  Delaware  and  Sir  Thomas  Gates,  may  be 
added  that  of  Beverly,  who  in  his  History  of  Virginia,  written  at  the 
beginning  of  the  last  century,  says,  "  The  rivers  and  creeks  were,  in 
many  places,  covered  with  fowl  during  the  winter" — which  precludes 
the  fact  that  they  were  covered  with  ice. — (p.  134.)  "  That  elks,  buf- 
faloes, deer  and  other  game,"  were  hunted  by  the  natives  "  in  winter, 
when  the  leaves  were  fallen,  and  so  dry  they  would  burn ,-"  the  Indians 
driving  them  into  a  crowd,  by  circular  fires. — (p.  136.)  In  page  252, 
he  alludes  to  the  practice  of  letting  cattle  feed  in  the  woods  in  winter, 
and  charges  his  countrymen  with  ill  husbandry,  in  not  providing  suffi- 
ciently for  them  all  winter.  In  page  268  he  says,  the  winters  in  Vir- 
ginia are  very  short,  continuing  not  above  three  or  four  months,  of 
which  thirty  days  are  seldom  unpleasant  weather ;  all  the  rest  being 
blest  with  a  clear  air  and  a  bright  sun.  However,  sometimes  the  frost 
is  very  hard,  but  it  rarely  lasts  more  than  three  or  four  days,  before  the 
wind  changes.  The  rains,  except  in  the  depth  of  winter,  are  extremely 
refreshing  and  agreeable. — (Lond.  edit.  1722.) 

It  appears  to  me  extremely  unphilosophical  to  suppose  any  consider- 
able change  in  the  annual  heat  or  cold  of  a  particular  country.  We 
have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  inclination  of  the  earth's  axis  to  the 
plane  of  its  orbit  has  ever  been  varied  ;  but  strong  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary. If  this  inclination  has  always  been  the  same,  it  follows  that  the 
quantity  of  the  solar  rays,  falling  annually  on  a  particular  country,  must 
have  always  been  the  same.  Should  these  data  be  admitted,  we  are 
led  to  conclude  that  the  general  temperature  of  every  climate,  from  the 
creation  to  this  day,  has  been  the  same,  subject  only  to  small  annual 
variations,  from  the  positions  of  the  planets  in  regard  to  the  earth,  or 
the  operations  of  the  element  of  fire  in  the  globe  and  its  atmosphere. 

The  real  truth  seems  to  be,  that  when  a  country  is  covered  with  frost, 
the  vibrations  in  the  temperature  of  the  air  and  of  the  earth  near  the 
surface,  are  less  numerous  and  less  considerable,  than  in  an  open  coun- 
try. Dr.  Williams  himself  has  furnished  the  data  by  which  to  deter- 
mine this  point.  In  1791  he  found  an  open  field  frozen  to  the  depth  of 
three  feet  five  inches ;  at  the  same  time,  in  a  forest,  he  found  the  tem- 
perature of  the  earth  to  be  39°  by  Fahrenheit,  seven  degrees  above 
frost.     This  fact  solves  the  question  here  discussed. 

While  a  country  is  covered  with  trees,  the  face  of  the  earth  is  never 
swept  by  violent  winds ;  the  temperature  of  the  air  is  more  uniform, 

19 


146  ON   THE    SUPPOSED   CHANGE    IN   THE 

than  in  an  open  country ;  the  earth  is  never  frozen  in  winter,  nor 
scorched  with  heat  in  summer  ;  and  snow  that  falls  in  November  usual- 
ly lies  till  March  or  April,  although  the  earth  below  is  not  frozen,  but 
gradually  meUs  the  snow  and  absorbs  the  water.  On  the  other  hand, 
an  open  country  is  exposed  to  violent  winds,  and  frequent  great  changes 
of  weather.  The  earth  in  winter  is  usually  frozen  into  a  solid  mass 
from  one  to  three  feet  thick ;  great  snows  alternate  with  heavy  rains ; 
the  earth  which  is  covered  with  snow  to-day,  is  to-morrow  left  bare ; 
and  an  iron  surface  of  this  week,  is  the  next  converted  into  soft  mud. 
Hence  probably  as  much  snow  falls  in  an  open  country  as  in  a  for- 
est ;  or  if  the  clearing  of  a  country  converts  more  of  the  vapor  into 
water,  yet  it  is  liable  also  to  more  extreme  cold,  which  preserves  a  bal- 
ance in  the  temperature.  That  these  are  facts  every  man  knows,  who 
has  observed  the  difference  between  the  open  country  and  the  forest, 
in  our  old  settlements ;  and  Dr.  Williams  himself  has  given  the  results 
of  meteorological  observations  which  confirm  them,  and  disprove  the 
common  theory  of  a  moderation  of  cold.  In  page  50  of  his  history, 
he  states  the  difference  between  the  heat  of  the  earth  in  an  open  field, 
and  in  the  woods,  during  the  summer ;  by  which  experiments  it  is  de- 
monstrated, that  from  the  latter  part  of  May  to  the  close  of  August,  the 
open  country  sustains  about  ten  degrees  of  heat  beyond  that  of  the  for- 
est ;  the  thermometer  being  sunk  ten  inches  below  the  surface  of  the 
earth.  At  another  time  he  found  the  winter  temperature  of  the  earth 
in  the  forest  to  be  39°,  while  in  open  field  the  earth  was  frozen.  The 
vibrations  therefore  in  the  temperature  of  the  earth,  when  cleared,  are 
found  to  be  much  greater  than  when  covered  with  wood.  The  differ- 
ences, according  to  Dr.  Williams,  are  as  follows : 

Winter  temperature  of  the  earth  in  the  woods  in  Vermont,  39°. 
"  "  of  the  open  field  at  frost,  32°. 

Summer  Temperature  of  the  Earth. 


In  an  open  field. 

In  tlie  forest 

Difference. 

May        23, 

50° 

46° 

4° 

28, 

57 

48 

9 

June        15, 

64 

51 

13 

27, 

62 

51 

11 

July         16, 

62 

51 

11 

30, 

65^ 

55J 

10 

August    15, 

68 

58 

10 

31, 

69^ 

55 

^ 

Septem.  15, 

59^ 

55 

^ 

October     1, 

59J 

55 

^ 

From  these  observations,  it  results  that  in  winter  the  earth  of  the 
forest  is  seven  degrees  warmer  than  the  open  field  ;  and  in  summer  it 
is  on  an  average,  from  May  23  to  August  31,  9|°  colder — and  on  an 
average,  from  May  23  to  October  1,  8^°  colder.  That  is,  the  vibra- 
tions in  the  forest  temperature  of  the  earth  are  between  39°  and  58° — 
only  19°  of  difference  between  winter  and  summer ;  while  the  vibra- 
tions in  the  temperature  of  the  open  country,  are  between  32°,  or  frost, 
and  68° — making  a  difference  of  36^  between  winter  and  summer. 


TEMPERATURE    OF    WINTER.  147 

The  vibrations  of  the  temperature  of  the  air  are  more  considerable ; 
but  it  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  they  are  much  greater  in  an  open 
1  country,  than  in  a  forest ;  and  so  far  is  it  from  truth,  that  the  clearing 
and  cultivation  of  our  country  has  moderated  the  rigor  of  our  cold 
weather,  that  the  cold  of  our  winters,  though  less  steady,  has  been  most 
sensibly  increased.  There  is  not  a  greater  amount  of  cold  during  the 
winter,  but  the  cold  at  times  is  more  severe  than  before  our  country  was 
cleared.  The  difference  is  so  sensible,  as  to  be  a  subject  of  popular 
remark  among  aged  people. 

Another  etfect  of  clearing  the  country,  is  to  distribute  the  cold  of  the 
year  more  unequally :  hence  fruits  are  more  exposed  to  spring  frosts. 
,  This  is  a  most  serious  inconvenience  in  Europe,  and  is  becoming  so  in 
'  Am.erica.  The  reason  of  variable  and  late  springs  is  obvious.  While 
the  earth  is  covered  with  wood,  it  is  never  frozen,  but  as  soon  as  the 
snow  is  dissolved  in  spring,  vegetation  begins.  In  an  open  country, 
after  the  snow  is  melted,  the  earth  is  to  be  thawed  ;  and  the  heat  of  the 
air  for  two  or  three  weeks,  is  incessantly  absorbed  by  the  earth  and 
water,  while  the  frost  is  dissolving.  Hence  the  heat  of  a  warm  day  in 
spring  is  speedily  absorbed,  and  cold  succeeds.  This  alternation  must 
continue  till  the  earth  is  warmed.  If  the  winter  temperature  of  the 
earth  in  a  forest  is  39°  and  that  of  the  open  country  32°,  we  may  easily 
conceive  what  an  immense  quantity  of  heat  it  must  require  to  raise  the 
temperature  of  the  open  field  to  that  of  the  forest.  It  must  demand 
nearly  all  the  heat  excited  by  the  solar  rays  in  April,  so  that  in  our  open 
country,  the  earth  is  probably  not  warmer  on  the  last  of  that  month, 
than  it  was  when  a  forest,  on  the  first  of  the  month. 

It  will  be  remarked  that  in  discussing  this  question,  I  have  admitted 
the  fact  assumed  by  my  opposers,  that  there  has  been  a  clearing  and 
cultivation  of  Palestine,  since  the  settlement  of  the  Jews  in  that  country  ; 
and  of  Italy,  since  the  days  of  Julius  Cesar.  But  I  must  not  quit  the 
subject,  without  contradicting  the  fact  assumed.  The  reverse  is  the 
truth. 

When  Joshua  led  the  Israelites  toward  Palestine,  that  countiy  was 
very  populous,  inhabited  by  various  tribes  of  people,  and  containing 
large  cities,  whose  enormous  walls  terrified  the  Israelites.  Never  has 
that  country  been  so  populous  as  in  the  few  first  centuries,  after  the 
Israelites  took  possession  of  it.  The  country,  therefore,  could  not  have 
been  covered  with  wood,  but  every  foot  of  cultivable  land  was  occu- 
pied by  husbandmen. 

Equally  true  is  it,  that  the  countries  on  the  north  of  Syria  were  as 
populous  in  the  days  of  Darius,  as  at  any  subsequent  period.  It  was 
the  case  also  in  Italy,  which  was  more  populous  at  the  Christian  era, 
than  it  has  been  for  the  last  fifteen  centuries.  In  all  these  countries, 
therefore,  no  clearing  of  the  lands  can  have  taken  place,  to  influence 
the  climates,  within  the  period  in  which  a  moderation  of  cold  is  sup- 
posed. Germany,  on  the  north  of  Italy,  has  been  in  a  degree  cleared ; 
but  the  Rhetian  Alps  intervene  between  Italy  and  Germany ;  and  the 
cold  winds  which  affect  Italy  in  winter,  blow  from  those  highlands, 
where  the  air  is  colder  than  in  the  less  hilly  country  on  the  north.  In 
every  point,  therefore,  the  hypothesis  of  a  moderation  of  climate  ap- 
pears to  be  unsupported. 


1 


148'  ON    THE    SUPPOSED   CHANGE    IN    THE 

I  would  only  further  observe,  that  if  the  cold  has  abated  ten  or 
twelve  degrees  in  our  climate,  within  a  century  and  a  half,  it  must  have 
been  intolerable  before  that  period.  The  mean  temperature  of  Ver- 
mont now  is  about  43°.  If  we  deduct  10°  only  for  abatement  of  cold, 
the  water  in  deep  wells  in  Vermont,  two  hundred  years  ago,  must  have 
been  of  33°  of  temperature,  or  nearly  at  the  freezing  point ;  in  Canada 
it  must  have  been  at  32°,  or  the  state  of  congelation.  If  we  suppose 
the  winter  only  to  have  changed,  and  deduct  one  half  the  supposed 
abatement,  still  the  result  forbids  us  to  believe  the  hypothesis.  If  we 
suppose  the  heat  of  summer  to  have  lessened  in  the  same  proporti9n, 
as  just  philosophy  requires  us  to  do,  the  summers  formerly  must  have 
been  intolerable  ;  no  animal  could  have  subsisted  under  ten  degrees  of 
heat  beyond  our  present  summer  temperature.  On  whichever  side  we 
turn  our  eyes,  we  meet  with  insurmountable  difficulties. 

From  all  I  can  discover,  in  regard  to  the  seasons,  in  ancient  and  mod- 
ern times,  I  see  no  reason  to  conclude  with  Dr.  Williams,  that  the  heat 
of  the  earth  is  increasing.  It  appears  that  all  the  alterations  in  a  coun- 
try, in  consequence  of  clearing  and  cultivation,  result  only  in  making  a 
different  distribution  of  heat  and  cold,  moisture  and  dry  weather, 
among  the  several  seasons.  The  clearing  of  lands  opens  them  to  the 
sun,  their  moisture  is  exhaled,  they  are  more  heated  in  summer,  but 
more  cold  in  winter  near  the  surface ;  the  temperature  becomes  un- 
steady, and  the  seasons  irregular.  This  is  the  fact.  A  smaller  de- 
gree of  cold,  if  steady,  will  longer  preserve  snow  and  ice,  than  a  great- 
er degree,  under  frequent  changes.  Hence  we  solve  the  phenomenon, 
of  more  constant  ice  and  snow  in  the  early  ages ;  which  I  believe  to 
have  been  the  case.  It  was  not  the  degree,  but  the  steadiness  of  the 
cold  which  produced  this  effect.  Every  forest  in  America  exhibits  this 
phenomenon.  We  have,  in  the  cultivated  districts,  deep  snow  to-day, 
and  none  to-morrow ;  but  the  same  quantity  of  snow  falling  in  the 
woods,  lies  there  till  spring.  The  same  fact,  on  a  larger  scale,  is  ob- 
served in  the  ice  of  our  rivers.  This  will  explain  all  the  appearances 
of  the  seasons,  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  without  resorting  to  the 
unphilosophical  hypothesis  of  a  general  increase  of  heat. 


SUPPLEMENTARY    REMARKS.* 

When  the  preceding  dissertation  was  written,  I  had  devoted  very 
little  time  to  an  examination  of  the  subject,  and  had  read  very  few  of 
the  authorities  cited  to  prove  a  moderation  of  cold  in  winter  in  modern 
times.  Since  that  time,  I  have  noted  such  passages  in  ancient  authors, 
as  have  occurred  to  me,  in  the  course  of  reading,  with  a  view  to  ascer- 
tain, if  possible,  the  real  fact,  whether  the  industry  and  improvements 
of  men,  by  destroying  forests  and  cultivating  the  eartli,  have  occasioned 
a  material  alteration  of  climate. 

*  Written  and  read  before  the  Academy  in  1806.     ^  ._^_^ ; 


TEMPEHATtTRE    OF   WI^ITEIt..  149 

Strabo,  in  the  first  book  of  his  geography,  cites  from  Homer,  whom 
he  calls  the  father  of  geography,  a  passage  whic;h  describes  the  climate 
of  the  western  part  of  Europe,  where  the  poet  places  Elysium. — (See 
Odyssey,  lib.  4.)  This  country,  says  the  poet,  experiences  "  no  violent 
storms  of  snow,  and  little  winter,  but  is  perpetually  refreshed  by  gentle 
zephyrs  from  the  ocean."  This  description  Sti'abo  applies  to  Iberia,  or 
Spain,  and  alledges  that  the  Fortunate  isles  received  their  name  from 
their  vicinity  to  this  happy  climate.  The  description  proves  at  least 
the  opinion  of  the  ancients  respecting  the  climate  of  Spain  and  Portugal, 
and  it  corresponds  with  the  present  state  of  the  climate. 

Polybius,  speaking  of  an  invasion  of  Pelopennese  by  Philip  of  Mace- 
donia, about  the  year  before  Christ  218,  mentions  the  hardships  which 
his  army  encountered,  in  passing  Ligyrtus,  a  mountain  of  Arcadia,  on 
his  march  to  the  siege  of  Psophis,  by  reason  of  deep  snow  which  cover- 
ed the  mountain.  But  that  the  cold  was  not  great,  we  have  evidence  in 
the  same  book,  as  the  army,  a  few  days  afterward,  passed  over  the  river 
Erymanth,  on  a  bridge,  for  it  was  not  fordable.* — (Polyb.  Megalop. 
Hist.  lib.  4.) 

In  an  account  of  the  invasion  of  Sparta  by  Epaminondas,  in  the  Trav- 
els of  Anacharsis,  the  author  remarks  that  the  Theban  general  was 
making  dispositions  to  pass  the  Eurotas,  then  swelled  by  the  melting  of 
snow,  chap.  1,  where  is  cited  as  authority,  Plutarch's  Life  of  Agesilaus. 

From  these  passages,  we  conclude  that  snow  fell  in  winter  in  Lace- 
demon,  especially  on  the  mountains,  but  was  soon  dissolved  ;  and  hence 
Polybius  observes  of  a  river  on  the  west  of  Psophis,  that  it  was  seldom 
fordable  in  winter.     But  I  find  no  evidence  in  history  that  frost  of  any  rf^ 

severity  was  ever  experienced   in  Lacedemon  or  Attica.     On  the  other  *  n-^ 

hand,  it  is  related  from  Plutarch,  that  when  Epaminondas  was  in  Area-  ^m 

dia  with  an  army,  in  winter,  he  was  invited  by  deputies  from  a  neighbor-  i^' 

ing  city  to  take  up  his  quarters  in  the  city ;  but  he  declined,  assigning 
as  a  reason  that  if  the  Lacedemonians  should  see  him  and  his  men  by 
the  fire,  they  would  take  them  to  be  ordinary  men.     He  therefore  chose  "^ 

to  continue  in  camp,  notwithstanding  the  rigor  of  the  season,  and  con- 
tinue their  wrestling  matches  and  military  exercises. — (Anarch,  chap, 
5.)  This  anecdote  indicates  cool  uncomfortable  weather  in  that  coun- 
try in  winter,  but  not  severe  cold,  like  that  which  freezes  large  rivers 
in  America. 

The  author  of  Anacharsis  relates  from  Columella,  that  the  winter  in 
every  part  of  Beotia,  is  very  cold,  and  at  Thebes  almost  insupportable  ;  ^ 

and  that  snow,  wind  and  want  of  wood,  rendered  that  part  of  Greece 
an  unpleasing  residence  in  winter. — (See  chap.  34.)  With  what  cau- 
tion we  ought  to  receive  such  general  accounts  of  climate,  may  be  un- 
derstood from  the  fact,  that  in  Thessaly,  far  north  of  Beotia,  and  in  a 
mountainous  country,  vines  and  olives  came  to  perfection,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  the  same  writer,  in  the  same  chapter.  Cold  and  heat 
are  comparative ;  and  the  degrees  of  them  are  not  to  be  known  from 
general  assertions.  Homer  speaks  of  the  wild  fig-tree  before  the  walls 
of  Troy,  a  degree  and  a  half  of  latitude  north  of  Beotia. — (Iliad,  lib.  6, 

*  Strabo,  lib.  8,  informs  us  that  Arcadia  is  a  mountainous  region,  some  of  the 
moaotains  being  fifteen  stadiums  in  altitude. 


ON    THE    SUPPOSED   CHANGE    IN   THE 

433.)  And  other  ancient  authors  speak  of  the  fig-tree,  vines  and  olives 
growing  in  Macedonia,  two  degrees  still  further  north. — (Anarch,  chap. 
65.)  Pliny  informs  us  that  figs  were  produced  at  Mount  Ida,  near  the 
site  of  Troy. — (Nat.  Hist.  lib.  15,  cap.  18.)  Theophrast  informs  us 
that  figs  grew  in  great  abundance  in  Pontus,  on  the  south  shore  of  the 
Euxine. — (Hist.  Plant,  lib.  4,  6.)  And  Xenophon  found,  on  his  retreat 
with  the  ten  thousand,  figs  and  vines  in  abundance  at  Calpe,  on  the 
same  shore,  about  eight  hundred  and  seventy  stadiums  from  Byzantium. 
— (See  his  account,  lib.  6.)  Pliny,  in  the  book  just  cited,  gives  an  ac- 
count of  a  method  of  raising  figs  in  Moesia,  the  modern  Bulgaria,  in  the 
forty  fourth  degree  of  north  latitude,  which  was  effected  by  covering 
small  trees  in  winter  with  compost.  These  facts,  and  numberless  oth- 
ers, which  I  have  found  in  authors,  furnish  the  most  accurate  test  of  the 
real  state  of  the  climate  in  Greece,  Asia  Minor,  and  the  neighboring 
countries. 

Joseph,  in  the  fifth  book  of  his  Antiquities,  ch.  5,  relates  that  in  the 
battle  between  the  Canaanites  and  the  Israelites,  under  Barak  and  Deb- 
orah, the  Canaanites  were  exceedingly  annoyed  by  a  storm  of  rain  and 
liail,  which  blew  in  their  faces,  and  rendered  their  bows  and  slings  al- 
most useless  ;  while  the  cold  benumbed  their  fingers,  so  that  they  could 
not  use  their  swords.  This  fact  would  seem  to  confirm  the  common 
opinion  that,  anciently,  Palestine  was  far  colder  than  at  present.  But 
we  must  not  be  misled  by  single  facts.  In  the  very  next  chapter,  the 
historian,  in  relating  the  sufferings  of  his  countrymen  from  the  Midian- 
ites,  informs  us  that  their  enemies  invaded  the  country  in  time  of  har- 
vest, and  carried  away  or  destroyed  their  corn  for  three  years  in  suc- 
cession ;  but  permitted  the  Israelites  to  plow  their  land  in  winter,  that 
they  might  furnish  fruits  of  the  earth  for  their  plunderers.  The  latter 
fact  entirely  overthrows  the  opinion  that  anciently  the  winters  were  more 
rigorous  than  at  present ;  for  we  see  that  it  was  customary  to  prepare 
the  land  for  seed  in  winter,  as  it  is  at  this  day.  A  storm  of  hail  or 
snow  might  happen  occasionally  in  winter,  as  it  does  now  in  South  Car- 
olina and  Georgia ;  but  the  frost  of  ordinary  years  was  not  sufficient 
to  impede  the  agricultural  operations  of  winter. 

Appian  relates  that  at  the  siege  of  Numantia  in  Spain,  many  Roman 
soldiers  perished  by  cold  and  frequent  hail  storms^  aoout  one  hundred 
and  forty-five  years  before  the  Christian  era.  But  Numantia  was  situ- 
ated in  the  center  and  mountainous  part  of  Spain,  near  the  source  of 
the  Duro,  where  the  laws  of  nature  require  us  to  suppose  a  considera- 
ble degree  of  cold  in  winter.  Yet  an  anecdote  related  by  Quinctilian, 
lib.  6,  shows  that  in  Tarracona,  the  country  where  Barcelona  is  now  sit- 
uated, the  climate  must  have  been  as  mild  as  at  present.  The  people 
of  Tarracona  informed  Augustus,  that  a  palm-tree  was  growing  from 
his  altar.  "  From  that  I  can  judge,"  replied  the  prince,  "  how  often 
you  use  fire  upon  it."  This  story  implies  that  palm-trees  grew  in  the 
north  of  Spain,  and  in  the  very  latitude  of  Numantia,  on  the  eastern 
coast,  which  is  washed  by  the  Mediterranean. 

In  the  first  chapter  of  the  second  book  of  Maccabees,  the  Jews  of 
Jerusalem  recommend  to  their  brethren  in  Egypt,  to  keep  the  feast  of 
tabernacles  in  the  month  Casleu,  which  answers  to  a  part  of  Novem- 
ber and  December.     This  circumstance  among  others  led  Prideaux  to 


^  TEMPERATURE    OF   WINTER.  151 

pronounce  the  epistles  of  the  Jews  in  this  chapter  to  be  spurious ;  for, 
says  that  learned  author,  the  Jews  could  not,  in  the  middle  of  winter, 
make  such  booths  as  in  the  feast  of  tabernacles ;  they  could  neither 
find  green  boughs  enough,  nor  could  they  lie  abroad  in  such  booths. — 
(Connec,  part  ii,  book  3.)  This  argument  is  undoubtedly  founded  on 
mistake  ;  for  in  a  country  where  the  plowing  and  sowing  of  land  were 
constantly  carried  on  in  winter,  and  where  the  palm-tree  flourished  in 
perfection,  ordinary  winters  would  not  render  the  temporary  lodging  in 
booths  very  uncomfortable  ;  nor  could  such  a  country  be  necessarily 
destitute  of  green  boughs.  Let  it  be  added  also,  that  in  the  second 
chapter  of  the  Song  of  Solomon,  we  find  the  winter  was  a  season  of 
rain^  and  not  of  snow.    "  The  winter  is  past ;  the  rain  is  over  and  gone." 

In  opposition  to  Prideaux's  opinion,  and  to  the  general  hypothesis  of 
the  rigorous  winters  of  antiquity,  it  may  be  remarked  that  in  Greece, 
six  degrees  of  latitude  north  of  Judea,  the  theaters  were  not  covered, 
but  plays  were  acted  in  the  open  air. — (See  Anarch.,  ch.  70,  where  Vi- 
truvius,  lib.  5,  cap.  9,  is  cited  as  an  authority.)  The  Roman  theaters 
and  amphitheaters  were  also  without  roofs.  Indeed  for  centuries  after 
theatrical  representations  were  introduced  at  Rome,  the  theaters  Avere 
temporary  structures  of  wood,  without  seats,  the  spectators  standing 
during  the  exhibition. — (Tacit.  An.,  14,  20.)  It  is  evident  also  from  a 
passage  in  Quinctilian,  lib.  10,  ch.  3,  that  the  courts  of  justice  were 
held  in  apartments  without  roofs ;  and  so  was  the  Areopagus  in  Ath- 
ens.— (Acts  xvii.) 

Authors  inform  us  that  in  the  later  ages  of  refinement  at  Athens,  the 
stage,  and  a  part  of  the  theater  occupied  by  the  ladies,  were  covered  ; 
but  the  spectators  in  general  had  no  covering  but  their  clothes.  Plays 
were  indeed  acted  in  Greece  in  the  day  time  ;  but  as  they  were  acted 
at  all  seasons  of  the  year,  the  open  theaters  forbid  us  to  suppose  the 
winters  more  rigorous  and  tempestuous  formerly  than  in  modern  days. 

The  thin  dress  of  the  Romans  and  Greeks  is  another  proof  of  the 
mildness  of  their  climate.  The  Romans  wore  no  garments  answering 
to  the  modern  breeches  and  stockings ;  their  principal  garments  being 
the  tunica^  or  close  coat  worn  at  home,  and  the  toga^  or  loose  gown 
without  sleeves,  worn  in  public ;  to  which  may  be  added  the  trabea, 
paludamentum,  chlamys  and  IcBna,  robes  worn  by  men  of  distinction  and 
military  officers. — (Kennet,  Antiq.  Rom.  II,  5,  7.)  Hence  the  close 
garments  which  invested  the  lower  limbs  of  the  Celtic  and  Teutonic 
nations,  were  objects  of  notice  among  the  Romans  who  traveled  north 
of  Italy.  Ovid,  among  the  curiosities  of  Thrace,  the  place  of  his  ex- 
ile, describes  the  skins  and  close  breeches  of  the  inhabitants. 

«.■ 

"  Pellibus  et  sutis  arcent  male  frigora  bracchis." — (De  Trist.  lib.  3, 10.) 

And  it  is  perfectly  well  known  that  this  customary  dress  of  the  Gauls, 
gave  rise  to  a  distinctive  appellation  of  the  southwestern  part  of  their 
country,  which  was  called  by  the  Romans  Gallia  braccata.  The  cus- 
tomary light  dress  of  the  Romans,  which  continued  down  to  the  ages 

*  This  line  is  repeated,  lib.  5,  7,  with  the  change  of  sutis  to  laxis,  loose  breech- 
es, or  trowsers. 


j^K  ON  THE  SUPPOSED  CHANGE  IN  THE 

of  wealth  and  luxury,  and  therefore  can  not  be  supposed  to  have  been 
the  effect  of  necessity,  as  it  is  among  savage  nations,  furnishes  strong 
evidence  of  the  uniform  mild  temperature  of  ordinary  winters  in  Italy. 

Velleius  Paterculus,  lib.  11,  cap.  105,  mentions  that  the  Roman 
troops,  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  kept  their  summer  quarters  till  Decem- 
ber in  Germany,  at  the  head  of  the  Lippe,  near  the  modern  Paderbom, 
in  Westphalia,  and  in  the  fifty-second  degree  of  north  latitude.  This 
was  favorable  to  the  operations  of  the  campaign,  as  the  author  remarks ; 
and  indicates  a  climate  as  temperate  as  in  modern  days.  .  Yet  at  that 
time,  the  historian  informs  us,  the  Alps  were  almost  impassable  by  rea- 
son of  snow. 

Xenophon,  in  his  Anabasis  or  Expedition  of  Cyrus,  has  described 
the  sufferings  of  the  troops  in  their  retreat  through  Armenia,  four  cen- 
turies before  the  Christian  era,  from  great  quantities  of  snow  and  severe 
frost.  The  snow  in  one  place,  he  says,  was  a  fathom  in  depth  ;  and 
many  horses  and  slaves,  and  some  soldiers,  died — others  lost  their  limbs 
by  the  frost. — (Lib.  4.)  Three  days  before  the  snow  fell,  the  troops 
forded  the  Euphrates,  with  the  water  to  their  navel. 

The  troops  of  LucuUus  experienced  inconveniences  from  the  same 
cause,  in  the  same  country,  during  the  war  against  Mithridates.  Plu- 
tarch informs  us,  in  his  life  of  that  general,  that  before  the  winter  sol- 
stice, the  weather  grew  tempestuous,  and  great  quantities  of  snow  fell ; 
that  the  soldiers,  marching  in  the  woods,  were  wet  by  snow  which  fell 
from  the  trees  ;  but  at  the  same  time,  he  says,  they  were  obliged  to  en- 
camp at  night  in  wet  and  miry  places,  so  that  it  was  not  cold  enough  to 
freeze  water.  But  we  must  not  conclude  from  these  facts,  that  the  cli- 
mate of  that  country  is  altered  ;  for  Chardin  and  Tournefort,  in  the  sev- 
enteenth and  eighteenth  centuries,  found  the  temperature  of  the  winter 
precisely  as  described  by  Xenophon  and  Plutarch.  Chardin  informs 
us,  that  when  he  passed  Caucasus,  the  snow  was,  in  some  places,  ten 
feet  deep ;  his  guides  wore  snow-shoes,  and  in  some  places  shoveled 
for  him  a  path.  At  Tefflis,  on  the  river  Kur,  it  snowed  all  day,  when 
he  first  arrived  ;  and  he  repeatedly  mentions  that  the  mountains  of  Ar- 
menia and  Georgia,  which  are  in  the  fortieth,  forty-first  and  forty-se- 
cond degrees  of  north  latitude,  are  never  destitute  of  snow. — (See  pa- 
ges 166,  171,  241,  242,  247,  413;  Lond.  fol.  1686.) 

Tournefort  arrived  at  Erzeron,  at  the  foot  of  a  mountain  near  the 
head  of  the  Euphrates,  in  the  fortieth  degree  of  latitude,  on  the  15th 
of  June,  and  found  the  neighboring  hills  covered  with  snow.  The 
nights  were  so  cold  that  his  fingers  were  too  numb  to  write,  until  an 
hour  after  sunrise.  The  wheat  harvest  was  in  September. — (See  his 
Travels,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  75,  81,  82,  94,  102,  107,  &c.;  Lond.  8vo.  1741.) 

At  Erivan,  in  the  forty-first  degree  of  latitude,  says  Chardin,  the  win- 
ter lasts  long,  so  that  it  sometimes  snows  in  April ;  the  country  produ- 
ces wine  in  abundance,  but  the  people  are  obliged  to  cover  the  vines  in 
winter. — (p.  247.)  From  these  authorities  we  may  infer  that  the  win- 
ter temperature  of  Armenia  and  Georgia  has  not  abated  within  two 
thousand  years.* 

*  Herodotus,  lib.  1,  relates  that  at  Babylon,  which  was  in  a  mild  climate,  far 
south  of  Armenia,  the  ancient  inhabitants  did  not  cultivate  the  vine,  olive  and  fig ; 


TEMPERATURE    OF   WINTEK.  153  ' 

It  has  been  already  remarked  that  snow  formerly  fell  occasionally  in 
Greece,  even  in  the  Peloponnese ;  and  the  most  credible  testimonies 
agree  that  Mount  Ida,  in  Crete,  was  always  clothed  with  snow. — (Plin. 
Nat.  Hist.  lib.  16,  cap.  33.  Theophrast,  Hist.  Plant,  lib.  4,  cap.  1.) 
Tournefort  visited  this  isle  in  his  voyage  to  the  Levant,  and  testifies  that 
the  inhabitants  of  Canea  fetch  their  snow,  in  summer,  from  the  neigh- 
boring mountains ;  and  he  confirms  the  assertion  of  Theophrast  and 
Pliny,  that  the  cypress  grows  there  among  the  snow.  At  the  foot  of 
these  mountains  grow  figs,  olives  and  other  delicate  fruits,  as  they  did 
in  the  earliest  ages. — (Tournefort,  Let.  1.) 

In  Milo,  says  the  same  traveler.  Let.  4,  it  never  freezes,  and  very 
rarely  snows ;  when  it  does,  the  snow  melts  in  a  quarter  of  an  hour : 
the  cold  is  not  prejudicial  to  the  olive  trees,  as  it  is  in  Provence  and 
Languedoc,  where  the  contexture  of  the  bark  is  torn  by  the  dilatation 
of  the  water  which  freezes  in  the  pores. 

When  Tournefort  visited  Samos,  in  February,  he  found  the  cold  se- 
vere on  the  mountains ;  and  on  the  23d  of  the  month,  some  snow  and 
a  great  deal  of  hail.— (Vol.  II,  Let.  3.) 

On  Mount  Olympus,  in  Asia  Minor,  says  the  same  author,  nothing  is 
to  be  seen  but  old  snow  in  a  very  great  quantity.  This  was  in  Novem- 
ber. He  also  says,  that  a  river  which  runs  by  Tocat,  does  much  inju- 
ry when  swelled  by  rain  or  the  melting  of  snow. — (Let.  9.) 

The  river  Meles,  which  washes  Smyrna,  says  Chandler  in  his  Trav- 
els, ch.  20,  swells  into  a  torrent  after  heavy  rains  on  the  mountains,  or 
the  melting  of  snow.  The  houses  in  Smyrna,  except  those  erected  by 
Europeans,  seldom  have  chimneys  ;  but  in  cold  weather,  a  pan  of  char- 
coals, under  a  table  covered  with  a  carpet,  serves  to  warm  the  family. 
The  same  author  mentions  snow  upon  the  summits  of  mountains,  as  he 
passed  from  Smyrna  to  Ephesus,  Miletus  and  Laodicea,  as  late  as  March 
and  April.— (See  his  Travels,  4to,  Oxford,  1775,  pp.  70,  80,  105,  164, 
221,  224.) 

The  same  author.  Vol.  II,  p.  79,  speaks  of  snow  on  the  mountains  of 
Attica.  The  Ilissus,  he  says,  in  summer  is  quite  dry ;  and  while  he 
resided  at  Athens,  he  several  times  visited  the  river  after  snow  had  fall- 
en on  the  mountains,  in  hopes  to  see  it  fill  its  banks.  He  observes  al- 
so that  the  Cephissus  is  a  small  stream,  and  absorbed  before  it  reaches 
the  sea,  except  after  the  melting  of  snow,  or  a  heavy  rain.  In  descri- 
bing the  dress  of  the  modern  Greeks,  he  mentions  in  addition  to  their 
ordinary  garments,  a  long  vest,  which  they  hang  on  their  shoulders, 
lined  with  wool  or  fur  for  cold  weather. — (Vol.  II,  pp.  110,  119.) 

This  author  further  states  that  when  the  mountains  in  Attica  are  cov- 
ered with  snow,  the  woodcocks  descend  into  the  plain ;  and  if  the 
ground  continues  frozen  and  the  weather  severe,  they  enter  the  gardens, 
and  are  so  tame  as  sometimes  to  be  taken  by  the  hand. — (p.  127 ;  see 


but  he  insinuates  that  this  neglect  was  owing  to  the  peculiar  fitness  of  the  soil  for 
corn.  That  it  could  not  be  on  account  of  the  climate,  is  certain  ;  for  the  same  au- 
thor relates  that  the  palm-tree  was  cultivated  with  success,  and  caprification  was 
then  practiced  as  in  modern  times.  Herodotus  also  says,  that  palm  wine  was  an 
article  of  merchandise,  transported  from  Armenia  down  the  Euphrates,  in  boats 
made  of  willows  covered  with  skins. 

20 


% 


Jm. 


154  ON    THE    SUPPOSED   CHANGE    IN    THE 

also  p.  163.)  On  his  journey  to  Delphi,  in  the  beginning  of  July,  he 
found  the  summits  of  the  mountains  white  with  snow  ;  and  Parnassus 
is  covered  with  perennial  snow. — (pp.  260,  270.)  This  confirms  the 
account  which  Homer  gives  of  the  climate  of  Dodona,  which  he  calls 
very  cold.— (Iliad  11,  750.) 

AH  these  authorities  prove  beyond  a  question  that  the  climate  of 
Greece  and  Asia  Minor,  in  modern  days,  corresponds  well  with  the 
representations  given  of  it  in  ancient  history.* 

There  is  a  passage  in  Pliny,  (Nat.  Hist.  lib.  2,  50,)  which,  after  as- 
signing reasons  why  there  is  no  thunder  in  cold  countries  in  winter,t 
expressly  declares  that  the  climate  of  Italy  is  always  mild.  "  Mobilior 
aer  mitiore  hyeme,  et  sestate  nimbosa,  semper  quodam  modo  vernat  vel 
autumnat," — always  exhibiting  the  verdure  of  spring  or  the  mildness  of 
autumn.  He  says,  chapter  47th  of  the  same  book,  that  the  swallows 
appear  by  the  24th  of  February.  This  account  corresponds  with  what 
has  been  before  remarked,  respecting  the  germination  of  plants  in  the 
same  month. 

There  is  a  passage  in  Joseph,  (Jewish  War,  lib.  3,  ch.  10,)  which 
describes  the  climate  near  the  lake  of  Gennesareth,  as  remarkably 
mild  and  pleasant ;  and  after  mentioning  its  fruitfulness  in  palm-trees, 
olives  and  figs,  it  is  said  that  grapes  and  figs  are  supplied  from  the 
trees  for  ten  months  in  the  year.  How  incompatible  is  this  description 
with  the  supposed  rigor  of  the  ancient  winters  in  Judea ! 

Tacitus  informs  us,  (Hist.  lib.  3,  59,)  that  Vespasian's  army,  in  pass- 
ing the  Apennines  to  quell  a  revolt  in  winter,  suffered  severe  distresses 
from  cold  and  snow.  But  we  must  recollect  that  the  French  army,  but 
a  few  years  past,  suffered  equally  from  the  same  causes,  in  the  same 
country,  on  their  march  through  the  Neapolitan  territories. 

Pelloutier,  in  his  History  of  the  Celts,  book  i,  ch,  12,  asserts  that  in 
the  time  of  the  first  Roman  emperors,  "  On  ne  recueilloit  encore  dans 
les  Gaules,  ni  vin,  ni  huile,  ni  d'autres  fruits,  et  cela  k  cause  de  la  rig- 
ueur  du  climat,  et  du  froid  excessif  qui  y  regnoit."  He  admits  indeed 
that  in  Germany  were  some  cultivated  fields,  but  not  one  fruit  tree,  as 
such  could  not  sustain  the  rigor  of  the  cold.  The  boldness  and  posi- 
tiveness  of  this  writer  led  me  to  recur  to  his  authorities  and  examine 
them  with  care. 

Strabo,  a  most  diligent  investigator  and  accurate  geographer,  in  the 
very  passage  cited  by  Pelloutier,  overthrows  the  assertion  of  the  latter 
author.  "  Narbonensian  Gaul,"  says  Strabo,  "  produces  the  same  fruits 
as  Italy.  Proceeding  to  the  north  and  the  Cevennes,  the  country  pro- 
duces the  same  fruits,  the  fig  and  olive  only  excepted." — (Book  iv, 
sect.  2.)     This  account  corresponds  with  that  of  Pliny,  as  I  have  in  my 


*  There  is  a  passnge  of  Herodotus,  in  Euterpe,  which  indicates  that  snow  some- 
times fell  in  his  native  country,  Halicarnassus;  for  he  asserts  tliat  a  fall  of  snow 
must  be  followed  in  five  days  by  rain.  This  remark  represents  the  climate  of  that 
country  nearly  as  it  is  at  present. 

f  Herodotus,  in  Melpomene,  mentions  the  same  fact,  in  describing  Scythia. 
This  is  known  to  be  correct  at  this  day.  In  northern  climates,  there  is  no  thunder 
ill  winter;  but  in  Italy  and  Greece,  thunder  is  known  only  in  winter  or  spring. 
This  fact,  corresponding  with  the  statements  of  Herodotus  and  Pliny,  proves  the 
climates  of  Italy  and  Greece  to  be  the  same  as  in  their  days. 


TEMPERATURE    OF   WINTER.  105 

former  dissertation  stated  at  large ;  where  it  is  proved  that  figs  and 
olives  grew,  in  the  times  of  the  first  emperors,  in  the  province  of  Nar- 
bonne,  which  comprehended  the  more  modern  Provence  and  Dauphine, 
and  that  north  of  that  region  they  will  not  now  thrive,  nor  are  they  cul- 
tivated. But  all  parts  of  Gaul,  says  Strabo,  will  produce  the  fruits 
which  grow  in  Italy,  except  the  fig  and  the  olive.  Italy,  it  is  agreed, 
produced  figs,  olives,  and  various  kinds  of  wine.  "  Latium,"  says 
Strabo,  lib.  5,  "  enjoys  a  mild  climate  and  produces  all  kinds  of  fruits, 
^7iafi(poQog,'j  excepting  the  marshy  lands  on  the  sea-coast,  and  some 
mountainous  tracts ;  but  even  these  produce  abundant  pasturage,  many 
kinds  of  fruits,  and  even  one  excellent  kind  of  wine," 

Strabo,  in  his  second  book,  makes  very  correct  and  judicious  remarks 
on  climate ;  stating  that  mountainous  regions  are  colder  than  valleys 
and  low  plains.  He  mentions  Bagadania,  an  elevated  plain  between 
Mount  Taurus  and  Argea,  which  produced  scarcely  any  fruit  trees, 
although  situated  three  thousand  stadiums  south  of  the  Euxine,  where, 
at  Sinope,  the  country  produced  olives.  This  circumstance  has  not 
been  sufficiently  considered  in  estimating  the  descriptions  of  climates 
and  seasons,  in  ancient  authors.  Strabo  then  observes,  that  upon  the 
Boristhenes,  now  the  Neiper,  and  in  that  part  of  Celtica  which  is  con- 
tiguous to  the  ocean,  the  vine  either  will  not  grow  or  not  produce  fruit. 
Celtica  was  that  part  of  Gaul  which  is  comprehended  between  the  Ga- 
ronne and  the  Seine. — (Cesar,  Com.  lib.  1.)  Now  let  it  be  remarked, 
that  the  vine  is  cultivated  at  this  day,  in  the  maritime  part  of  France, 
to  a  very  little  distance  north  of  the  Loire,  in  the  forty  eighth  degree  of 
latitude,  although  in  the  interior  country,  it  is  cultivated  with  success  to 
the  fiftieth  degree.  Strabo's  assertion  therefore,  with  regard  to  Gaul, 
is  almost  literally  verified  by  modern  facts.* 

,  Strabo  then  mentions  the  climate  on  the  north  of  the  Euxine,  and  the 
fact  that,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Palus  Mseotis,  a  general  of  Mithridates, 
with  a  body  of  horse,  defeated  the  barbarians  upon  the  ice,  on  the  very 
spot,  where  in  summer  he  defeated  them  in  a  naval  engagement. 

A  fact  of  this  sort  is  of  no  eflTect  in  settling  the  question  respecting  a 
change  of  climate,  because  we  know  not  whether  the  water  in  the  strait 
of  the  sea  of  Azof  annually  congeals  in  winter  into  firm  and  solid  ice, 
or  whether  the  fact  mentioned  was  owing  to  an  unusual  occurrence, 
and  related  for  that  very  reason.  The  circumstances  naturally  lead  us 
to  conclude  that  the  ice  in  that  year  was  stronger  than  usual,  and  that 
the  winter  was  uncommonly  severe. 

Strabo  then  proceeds  to  state  from  Eratosthenes,  the  story  of  a  bra- 
zen cup  or  vessel  which  had  been  burst  by  the  freezing  of  water,  and 
as  an  evidence  of  the  fact,  was  preserved  in  the  temple  of  Esculapius 
at  Panticape,  a  town  on  the  Cimmerian  Bosphorus.  He  cites  the  in- 
scription on  the  vessel,  of  which  the  following  is  a  translation.  "  If 
any  man  disbelieves  what  events  have  taken  place  among  us,  let  him 
view  this  vessel  and  learn  the  truth.  This  vessel  has  been  deposited 
here  by  Stratius,  the  priest,  not  as  a  gift  to  the  gods,  but  as  an  evidence 
of  a  very  rigorous  winter'''' — [xeificjvos  fieyaks.J     The   translator  has 

*  See  Young's  Tour  in  France,  Vol.  II,  ch.  3,  and  liis  map  of  the  climate. 
Pausanias  informs  us  that  olives  grew  in  Tithorea  on  Mount  Parnassus,  which  is 
in  the  thirty  ninth  degree  of  latitude. — (Phocics,  ch.  32.) 


156  ON   THE   SUPPOSED  CHANGE   IN  THE 

rendered  these  words  by  immensi  frigoris,  which  would  describe  severe 
cold  in  general.  But  such  mistakes  of  the  meaning  of  original  writers 
are  the  sources  of  many  false  theories.  The  Greek  x^iiiwv  will  not 
justify  this  translation ;  it  signifies  winter,  and  in  connection  with  great, 
evidently  denotes,  in  this  place,  an  unusual  winter.  Strabo  indeed 
speaks  of  the  freezing  of  the  Cimmerian  Bosphorus,  in  general  terms, 
and  of  large  fishes  being  dug  out  of  ice,  where  they  had  been  caught 
in  nets ;  and  if  this  should  on  inquiry  be  found  to  be  the  fact  now,  we 
ought  not  to  be  surprised,  as  that  strait  is  in  the  latitude  of  Quebec. 
Severe  as  the  cold  was,  the  Greeks  opened  a  communication  with  the 
nations  on  the  north  of  the  Euxine,  and  built  cities  on  the  coast,  among 
which  were  Panticape  on  the  strait,  and  Olbia  on  the  Boristhenes,  near 
the  mouth  of  the  Hypanis  or  Bog.  From  what  circumstance  this  town 
received  its  name,  I  know  not ;  but  it  signifies  happy  or  the  pleasant 
residence. — (Strabo,  lib.  7.     D'Anville,  Anc.  Geog.  ix.) 

That  Germany  would  not  produce  fruit  trees,  at  the  Christian  era, 
must  not  be  believed  ;  for  vines  were  cultivated  in  Gaul,  as  far  north  as 
the  territory  of  the  Sequani,  since  called  Burgundy  and  Frenche  Compte. 
And  Strabo  informs  us,  that  a  celebrated  prince  of  the  Getse,  after  sub- 
duing some  nations  in  Thrace  and  Pannonia,  persuaded  them  to  cut  up 
their  vines  and  live  without  wine. — (Lib.  7.)  Yet  Thrace,  as  well  as 
Germany,  is  represented  by  the  Roman  and  Greek  writers  as  oppressed 
with  intolerable  cold. 

That  there  is  much  inaccuracy  and  some  exaggeration  in  the  de- 
scriptions which  ancient  writers  have  given  of  the  winters  north  of  the 
Alps  and  the  Danube,  may  be  clearly  proved  by  a  comparison  of  these 
accounts  one  with  another.  Tacitus,  a  writer  of  great  credit,  says  of 
Germany,  "  Terra,  etsi  aliquanto  specie  differt,  in  universum  tamen 
aut  silvis  horrida,  aut  paludibus  foeda ;" — the  country  is  all  deformed 
with  woods  and  morasses. — (De  Mor.  Germ.  5.)  He  observes  that  the 
soil  is  "  satis  ferax" — sufficiently  fruitful ;  but  "  frugiferarum  arborum 
impatiens" — not  fitted  to  produce  fruit-bearing  trees  ;  yet  in  a  subse- 
quent section,  he  informs  us  that  the  inhabitants  eat  "  agrestia  poma" — 
wild  or  uncultivated  apples  ;  and  those  who  lived  near  the  Rhine,  pur- 
chsLsed  wine — "  Proximi  ripse  et  vinum  mercantur."  If  neither  Gaul 
nor  Germany  produced  wine,  where  did  the  dwellers  on  the  Rhine 
procure  it  ? 

Tacitus  informs  us  further,  that  the  Germans  cultivated  land,  chiefly 
indeed  by  their  servants,  old  men  and  women,  as  the  men  preferred 
war  to  labor.  But  they  raised  barley  and  other  grain,  not  only  for  food, 
but  for  drink  ;  for  their  chief  liquor  was  a  species  of  beer  or  ale,  made 
from  fermented  barley  and  other  corn.  The  lands  were  cultivated  by 
slaves,  who  lived  upon  the  land,  like  tenants,  and  paid  to  their  masters 
a  certain  part  of  the  produce.  How  incompatible  are  these  facts  with 
the  assertion  that  the  country  was  all  covered  with  forest  and  morasses  ! 
Nor  is  this  account  more  compatible  with  the  state  of  pasturage  in  Ger- 
many, which,  as  all  authors  agree,  supported  vast  herds  of  cattle. 

But  to  close  all,  Tacitus  himself  assigns  reasons  why  Germany  was 
not  well  cultivated,  without  resorting  to  the  asperity  of  its  climate.  Af- 
ter stating  that  the  inhabitants  parceled  out  the  fields  among  themselves, 
according  to  the  rank  of  each  individual,  (a  fact  in  which  we  see  the 
germ  of  the  feudal  system,)  and  that  the  fields  lay  fallow  every  other 


TEMPERATURE    OF   WINTER.  IST 

year,  the  author  says,  "  Nee  enim  cum  ubertate  et  amplitudine  soli  la- 
bore  contendunt,  ut  pomaria  conserant,  et  prata  separent,  et  hortos 
rigent  sola  terrse  seges  imperatur."  So  that  after  charging  the  defect 
of  fruit  trees  in  Germany  to  the  severity  of  the  winters,  this  grave  wri- 
'  ter  informs  us  that  it  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  want  of  labor.  The  peo- 
ple were  warlike,  impatient  of  labor,  and  not  having  known  the  pleas- 
ures of  luxury,  they  wanted  only  corn  for  subsistence.  Here  we  have 
the  whole  truth. 

But  the  passages  in  Ovid  and  Virgil,  describing  a  Thracian  winter, 
which  I  have  before  mentioned,  require  some  consideration. — (Ovid  de 
Tristibus,  lib.  3,  el.  10.     Virgil,  Georg.  lib.  3,  355.) 

Ovid  employs  the  whole  of  the  tenth  elegy  of  his  third  book  in  de- 
scribing the  phenomena  of  a  Scythian  winter,  as  it  appeared  at  Tomos, 
a  town  built  by  the  Greeks,  near  the  south  bank  of  the  Danube,  on  the 
Euxine.  The  passage  is  too  long  to  be  here  transcribed  ;  but  the  prin- 
cipal phenomena  of  the  winter  were,  violent  storms,  deep  snow,  and 
frost  so  severe  as  to  freeze  wine  in  jars,  and  the  Danube  covered  with 
solid  ice,  sufficient  to  sustain  horses  and  cattle  with  wagons,  or  whatever 
might  be  the  vehicles  called  plaustra.  Virgil's  description  corresponds 
in  general  with  Ovid's  ;  and  he  adds  that  snow  accumulated  to  the  depth 
of  seven  (ulnos)  cubits,  about  ten  or  eleven  feet ;  that  cattle  perished 
with  cold ;  and  that  deer,  plunged  in  snow  almost  to  the  top  of  their 
horns,  were  killed  with  knives,  not  being  able  to  escape. 

On  these  descriptions,  I  would  offer  the  following  observations  : 

1.  Some  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  license  of  the  poet.  Exag- 
geration is  admitted  into  verse  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  strong  ima- 
ges to  the  mind  ;  and  when  Virgil  speaks  of  snow  ten  feet  deep,  it  will 
be  obvious  that  he  must  have  had  in  view  snow-drifts,  which  often  accu- 
mulate to  that  highth,  in  the  middle  latitudes  of  the  earth — taking,  as 
a  poet  naturally  would,  the  most  remarkable  phenomenon  as  the  subject 
of  representation ;  or  he  must  have  intended  to  describe  the  piles  of 
everlasting  snow  upon  the  mountains  ;  or  he  must  have  described  some 
very  extraordinary  snows  in  severe  winters.  Every  man  will  at  once 
perceive  that  no  country  would  be  habitable  in  winter,  where  the  com- 
mon depth  of  the  snow  should  be  ten  feet  upon  a  level.  That  the  coun- 
try of  Thrace  and  Scythia,  to  the  Tanais  or  Don,  was  inhabited  by  nu- 
merous tribes  of  men,  who  subsisted  by  hunting  and  pasturage,  from 
the  earliest  times,  is  an  indisputable  fact ;  and  the  numerous  flocks  of  cat- 
tle and  horses  kept  by  the  nomadic  Scythians,  long  before  the  time  of  Vir- 
gil, is  a  powerful  argument  against  the  supposed  severity  of  the  winters 
in  their  climate  ;  for  they  did  not  cultivate  the  earth  to  any  considerable 
degree,  and  if  the  winters  were  of  six  or  eight  months'  duration,  as  an- 
cient authors  pretend,  how  was  it  possible  for  them  to  subsist  their  cattle  ? 

The  "  semper  hyems,  semper  spirantes  frigora  cauri"  of  Virgil,  must 
therefore  be  intended  for  Mount  Rhodope,  which  is  still  covered  with 
snow  the  whole  year,  or  it  must  be  a  poetical  fiction.*     In  the  same 

*  Virgil  begins  his  description  with  the  country  about  Rhodope,  but  a  part  of  it 
must  refer  to  the  polar  regions,  or  be  a  poetical  hction.  Indeed  the  ancients  had 
but  little  knowledge  of  the  country  north  of  the  Danube,  and  confounded  various 
climates  in  general  descriptions.  Herodotus  however  informs  us,  that  the  land 
along  the  Boristhenes  was  very  fruitful  in  corn.  He  also  speaks  of  the  plowing 
Scythians. — (See  his  Melpomene,  52,  53.) 


158  ON    THE    SUPPOSED   CHANGE    IN    THE 

light  must  we  view  the  representation  Virgil  gives  of  the  mode  of  spend- 
ing the  winter  in  Scythia ;  where,  he  says,  the  inhabitants  dug  caves 
for  their  residence,  and  warmed  them  by  rolling  ichole  oaks  and  elms 
upon  their  fires.  This  and  other  parts  of  the  description  are  evidently 
too  high  colored.  But  most  of  the  phenomena  described  by  Virgil  and 
Ovid,  are  such  as  we  observe  in  the  northern  parts  of  this  country ;  and 
such  as  occur  in  New  England,  in  winters  of  uncommon  severity.  If 
these  were  the  ordinary  phenomena  of  the  cold  in  the  countries  along 
the  Danube,  now  comprehended  in  Bulgaria,  Wallachia,  Bessarabia  and 
Hungary  ;  and  if  such  phenomena  do  not  now  occur  in  ordinary  years, 
there  must  have  been  a  change  of  climate.  With  regard  to  modern 
winters  in  that  region,  I  have  very  little  information.  It  is  certain,  how- 
ever, that  the  Danube  still  freezes  ;  although  my  information  does  not 
enable  me  to  say  to  what  degree. 

2.  My  second  observation  is,  that  the  freezing  of  wine  does  not  imply 
great  severity  of  cold.  Madeira  congeals  at  10°  above  cipher  by  Fah- 
renheit ;  and  the  lighter  wines  of  Italy,  Greece  and  Asia  Minor,  would 
undoubtedly  freeze  with  a  less  degree  of  cold. 

3.  The  accounts  which  historians  give,  as  well  as  Ovid,  of  the  irrup- 
tions of  the  barbarians  into  Thrace  and  Italy,  in  winter,  by  means  of  a 
bridge  of  ice,  and  the  drawing  of  their  plaustra  upon  the  ice  and  snow, 
demonstrate  that  the  snow  was  not  of  a  depth  beyond  what  is  usual  in 
New  England. 

4.  But  we  have,  in  Ovid's  twelfth  elegy,  more  certain  data  to  judge 
of  the  winters  in  Thrace.  The  poet  after  indulging  his  fancy  in  de- 
scribing the  gloomy  scenes  of  a  Thracian  winter,  assumes  a  more  cheer- 
ful air,  and  paints  the  beauties  of  the  following  spring,  "  Frigora  jam 
zephyri  minuunt,"  says  Ovid,  at  the  equinox.  He  then  observes  that 
the  year  past,  the  winter  of  Mseotis  seemed  longer  than  former  winters. 
Whether  he  means  longer  than  former  winters  in  the  same  country,  or 
whether,  that  being  the  first  winter  after  his  exile,  the  winter  appeared 
longer  to  him  than  it  had  done  in  Italy,  is  not  quite  certain.  If  the  for- 
mer, the  winter  was  unusually  long,  and  probably  unusually  cold ;  and 
therefore  not  to  be  considered  as  a  standard  of  the  general  temperature 
of  ancient  winters.  If  we  are  to  understand  the  passage  in  the  latter 
sense,  the  remark  is  rather  trifling  ;  for  who  could  question  that  a  winter 
in  Thrace,  would  not  appear  longer  to  any  man  than  a  winter  in  Italy ; 
and  especially  to  a  wretched  exile,  forced  from  his  family,  his  country, 
and  all  his  former  enjoyments  } 

But  we  must  not  pass  unobserved  the  feicts  mentioned  by  the  poet  at 
this  time — the  spring  equinox. 

Now  the  merry  youth,  says  Ovid,  gather  violets,  which  the  unculti- 
vated earth  produces ;  the  meads  are  decorated  with  blossoms  of  vari- 
ous hue,  and  the  woods  resound  with  the  melody  of  birds.  To  this  he 
adds  that  swallows  appeared  and  built  nests  sub  irabibus.  If  swallows 
appeared  in  Thrace,  immediately  after  the  equinox,  the  spring  must 
then  have  been  three  or  four  weeks  earlier  than  in  New  England ;  for 
they  do  not  appear  here  till  late  in  April.  The  same  fact  is  indicated 
by  the  blossoming  of  plants.  These  representations  of  the  poet  appear 
to  be  important  in  settling  this  question. 

Several  passages  in  the  most  respectable  ancient  authors,  leave  us  no 
room  to  question,  that  not  only  the  Cimmerian  Bosphorus,  the  Don  and 


TEMPERATURE    OF   WINTER.  1S(| 

Boristhenes,  but  that  the  Danube  and  Rhine  were,  in  winter,  covered 
with  ice  sufficient  to  bear  the  heaviest  loads,  and  that  armies  often  cross- 
ed them  on  the  ice.  These  facts  are  directly  asserted  in  the  following 
passages. — (Herodotus  in  Melpomene,  28.  Xiphilin's  Epit.  of  Dion. 
Cassius,  M.  Ant.  Herodian,  lib.  6.  Pausanias,  lib.  8,  cap.  28.  Jor- 
nandes  de  Rebus  Geticis,  55.     Ammianus  Marcellinus,  lib.  31,  cap.  10.) 

Herodotus  speaks  of  the  Euxine  Sea  and  the  Cimmerian  Bosphorus. 
Ovid  asserts  the  like  fact  of  the  Danube,  and  probably  intended  that 
part  of  the  river  which  is  near  its  mouth.  Pausanias  mentions  the  Hy- 
panis,  now  the  Bog ;  the  Boristhenes,  now  the  Neiper ;  the  Ister,  or 
Danube,  and  the  Rhine.  The  other  authors  speak  of  the  Danube 
and  Rhine,  near  their  sources  in  the  south  of  Germany  and  Helvetia. 
These  writers  represent  the  freezing  of  these  rivers  as  common  events — 
at  least  they  make  no  discrimination  between  winters ;  and  Herodian, 
in  the  passage  cited,  says  of  the  Rhine  and  Danube,  (pvaig  juev  dj]  rwp 
noTuinDv  avTi] — this  is  the  nature  of  those  rivers.  He  speaks  of  these 
rivers  as  they  were  in  the  country  which  now  comprehends  the  domin- 
ions of  Austria,  Bavaria  and  Swabia ;  for  it  was  in  those  countries 
where  the  barbarians  usually  crossed  the  rivers  to  invade  the  Roman 
empire. 

The  ice  however  was  not  always  sufficiently  strong  to  sustain  armies  ; 
for  about  the  year  before  Christ  175,  a  body  of  Bastarnians,  returning 
•ifrom  an  irruption  into  Dardania,  attempted  to  cross  the  Danube  on  the 
ice  and  were  almost  all  drowned. — (Baker's  Livy,  book  41.) 

How  frequently  the  Rhine  and  Danube,  in  the  same  countries,  are 
^covered  with  ice  of  similar  strength  in  modern  days,  I  know  not,  for 
unfortunately  modern  travelers  furnish  little  information  on  the  subject. 
Pelloutier,  who  has  cited  most  of  the  authorities  of  antiquity  on  this  sub- 
ject, says,  the  freezing  of  the  Rhine,  the  Danube,  the  Elbe,  the  Weser, 
and  the  Oder,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  sustain  armies,  is  now  an  extra- 
ordinary event,  which  happens  scarcely  once  in  ten  years — "  La  chose 
arrivera  k  peine  une  fois  dans  dix  ans." — (Hist,  des  Celts,  lib.  1,  ch.  12.) 
But  Cluver  says,  "  Danubius  in  Germania  glaciem  fert ;"  the  Danube 
in  Germany  bears  or  is  covered  with  ice. — (Lib.  1,  12.) 

Let  it  be  remarked  that  at  the  battle  of  Austerlitz,  Dec.  2,  the  Rus- 
.  sian  troops  were  said  to  have  crossed  a  lake  on  the  ice.  Bonaparte,  in 
his  account  of  the  action,  represented  that  most  of  them  fell  through 
the  ice  and  were  drowned  ;  but  by  the  official  Russian  account,  it  ap- 
pears that  the  troops  passed  over  in  safety. 

Let  it  be  further  remarked  that  Cesar,  in  his  history  of  his  seven 
campaigns  in  Gaul,  during  which  his  troops  were  often  disturbed  in  win- 
ter by  insurrections  of  the  inhabitants,  which  obliged  them  to  leave  their 
winter  quarters  and  march  great  distances,  though  he  often  mentions 
the  extreme  hardships  suffered  by  his  troops  in  these  marches,  and  par- 
-  ticularly  the  difficulty  of  transporting  baggage,  has  not  mentioned  the 
word  snow  [nivis]  in  a  single  instance,  if  my  memory  does  not  deceive 
me,  except  when  speaking  of  the  march  over  the  Cevennes ;  and  on 
these  mountains,  snow  falls  in  modern  days  to  a  depth  equal  to  that 
mentioned  by  Cesar. — (See  Pinkerton's  Geog.,  France.) 

But  whatever  may  be  the  fact  with  respect  to  the  climate  of  Germany, 
there  is  positive  evidence  that  the  rivers  in  Greece  and  Italy  did  not 


160  ON    THE    SUPPOSED   CHANGE    IN   THE 

freeze  to  any  considerable  degree  at  the  Christian  era.  Pausanias,  after 
mentioning  the  freezing  of  the  Danube  and  other  northern  rivers,  de- 
scribes the  water  of  the  rivers  in  Arcadia  as  fit  for  bathing  even  in 
winter. — (Lib.  8,  28.)  Herodian,  speaking  of  the  discontents  (on  ac- 
count of  the  climate,)  which  prevailed  among  the  troops  of  Commodus, 
who  performed  service  on  the  Danube,  and  who  complained  that  they 
had  frozen  water  to  drink,  speaks  of  the  rivers  of  Italy,  by  way  of  con- 
trast, as  cool  flowing  streams. — (Lib.  1.)  But  our  best  authority  is 
Ovid,  who,  after  relating  the  fact  that  the  "  Sarmatic  cattle  draw  car- 
riages upon  the  Danube,"  declares,  "  Vix  equidem  credar" — I  shall 
hardly  be  believed ;  yet  he  adds,  "  when  a  witness  has  no  motive  to 
misrepresent  facts,  credit  is  due  to  his  testimony."  Now  if  the  freezing 
of  rivers  to  such  a  degree  as  to  sustain  carriages  and  cattle  appeared 
incredible  to  the  inhabitants  of  Italy,  to  one  of  whom  Ovid  was  writing, 
it  amounts  to  full  proof  that  the  Italians  had  never  seen  such  a  phe- 
nomenon, in  their  own  country.  This  disproves  utterly  the  degree  of 
cold  in  ancient  Italy,  which  modem  writers  have  supposed,  and  confirms 
what  I  have  before  suggested,  that  the  instance  of  the  freezing  of  the 
Tiber  mentioned  by  Livy,  was  an  extraordinary  event,  which  excited 
general  surprise,  like  our  winter  of  1780.  Indeed,  all  the  descriptions 
of  the  rigorous  winters  in  Thrace,  Germany  and  Gaul,  being  given  by 
historians  and  poets  who  were  accustomed  to  the  mild  climates  of 
Greece  and  Italy,  wear  the  features  of  exaggeration,  which  must  have 
been  impressed  upon  them  by  the  astonishment  of  the  writers.  These 
facts  seem  to  decide  the  question,  that  the  winters  in  Greece  and  Italy 
were,  two  thousand  years  ago,  as  mild  as  they  are  in  this  age  ;  and  that 
if  any  change  has  ever  taken  place  in  those  countries,  it  must  have  been 
anterior  to  the  age  of  the  writers  mentioned.  Indeed  Columella,  de  Re 
Rustica,  lib.  1,  61,  mentions  the  opinion  of  an  author,  that  such  a  change 
had  taken  place  ;  and  cites  as  a  proof  of  it,  the  fact  that  vines  and  olives 
would  thrive  in  countries  where  the  cold,  in  preceding  ages,  had  pre- 
vented their  cultivation.  I  am  satisfied,  however,  that  although  the 
draining  and  drying  of  land  is  often  necessary  to  the  cultivation  of  par- 
ticular fruits,  yet  most  of  what  has  been  charged  to  cold,  ought  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  indolence  or  military  spirit  of  savage  men,  who  pre- 
ferred war  and  hunting  to  agriculture. 

In  addition  to  what  I  have  said,  on  the  subject  of  the  winters  in  Amer- 
ica, I  have  a  few  remarks  to  cite  from  two  writers  of  undoubted  credit. 

John  Megapolensis,  a  Dutch  clergyman,  who  resided  at  Albany,  and 
wrote  an  account  of  the  Mohawks,  in  1644,  a  translation  of  which  is  in 
Hazard's  Collection,  Vol.  I,  517,  says  of  the  climate,  "  the  summers 
are  pretty  hot,  and  the  winters  very  cold.  The  summer  continues  till 
All  Saints'  Day,  (Nov.  1,)  but  then  the  winter  sets  in,  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  it  commonly  does  in  December,  and  freezes  so  much  in  one 
night  that  the  ice  will  bear  a  man.  The  freezing  commonly  continues 
three  months — sometimes  there  comes  a  warm  and  pleasant  day,  yet 
the  thaw  does  not  continue  ;  but  it  freezes  again  till  March,  and  then 
commonly  the  river  begins  to  open,  seldom  in  February."  According 
to  this  account,  the  winters  have  not  moderated ;  for  the  Hudson,  at 
Albany,  usually  freezes  early  in  December,  and  continues  closed  till 
March.     A  common  winter  is  of  three  months'  duration. 


^^ 


TEMPERATURE    OF   WINTER.  161 

Professor  Kalm,  who  came  to  America  in  1748,  was  very  particular 
in  tys  inquiries  on  this  subject ;  and  to  the  best  information  he  could 
obtain,  he  added  his  own  observations.  He  relates.  Vol.  I,  p.  21,  Lond. 
1772,  that  at  Newcastle,  the  Delaware  seldom  froze  in  winter  so  as  to 
obstruct  navigation ;  but  at  Philadelphia,  that  river  was,  almost  every 
winter,  covered  with  ice,  so  as  to  interrupt  navigation  for  some  weeks 
together.  In  page  36  he  says,  the  climate  of  Philadelphia  was  then 
temperate  ;  the  winter  was  not  over  severe,  and  its  duration  short ; 
September  and  October  were  like  August  in  Sweden,  and  the  first  days 
in  February  frequently  as  pleasant  as  the  end  of  April  and  beginning 
of  May  in  the  middle  of  Sweden. 

In  page  38  he  says,  the  only  disadvantage  which  the  trade  of  Phila- 
delphia suffers,  is  the  freezing  of  the  river  almost  every  winter  for  a 
month  or  more.  In  page  83  he  states,  that  the  winters  he  spent  in  the 
country  were  none  of  the  coldest,  but  common  ones,  and  that  during 
his  stay,  the  Delaware  was  not  covered  with  ice  strong  enough  to  bear 
a  carriage.  In  the  next  page,  he  adds,  that  the  winters,  though  severe, 
did  not  continue  above  two  months,  and  at  Philadelphia  sometimes  less. 
Cherries  were  ripe  about  the  25th  of  May — (probably  old  style.) 

In  page  197,  the  author  speaking  of  New  York,  states  that  the  harbor 
is  good,  and  never  frozen  except  in  extraordinary  cold  weather ;  but  he 
says,  page  208,  the  winters  at  New  York  are  much  more  severe  than  in 
Pennsylvania.  He  says  afterward,  that  the  ice  stands  on  the  Hudson 
several  months,  by  which  he  must  mean  the  ice  on  that  river  in  the 
interior  country.  January  21,  1749,  people  walked  over  the  Delaware 
at  Philadelphia  on  the  ice ;  but  no  one  ventured  to  ride  over  on  horse- 
back. But  in  page  362,  the  author  informs  us,  that  the  river  was  cov- 
ered with  ice  soon  after  new  year,  and  the  ice  became  so  strong  that 
people  rode  over  on  horseback  :  the  ice  continued  to  the  8th  of  Febru- 
ary, when  the  river  was  cleared. 

The  old  men,  of  whom  Kalm  made  inquiries  respecting  a  change  in 
the  seasons,  all  agreed  in  the  fact,  that  when  the  country  was  first  set- 
tled, the  weather  was  more  uniform  than  it  was  in  their  time.  Most  of 
them  were  of  opinion,  that  more  snow  fell  when  they  were  young ; 
that  the  winters  began  earlier ;  and  that  the  springs  were  also  eai'lier. 
It  was  a  saying  among  the  old  Swedes,  that  they  had  always  grass  at 
Easter,  whether  early  or  late. 

Mr.  Norris,  one  of  the  first  settlers  of  Philadelphia,  and  a  merchant, 
related,  that  in  his  younger  years,  the  Delaware  was  usually  covered 
with  ice  by  the  middle  of  November,  old  style.  One  old  Swede,  who 
remembered  the  very  severe  winter  of  1697-8,  was  of  opinion,  there 
had  been  little  change  in  the  winters ;  that  there  were  as  great  storms 
and  as  cold  winters  in  his  old  age,  as  in  his  childhood. 

Kalm,  however,  in  his  second  volume,  page  43,  institutes  a  compar- 
ison between  Old  and  New  Sweden,  as  he  terms  the  two  countries,  in 
which  he  mentions,  among  the  disadvantages  of  New  Sweden,  or  Dela- 
ware and  Pennsylvania,  that  the  nights  are  darker  than  in  Old  Sweden, 
where  they  are  in  part  illuminated  by  snow  and  the  lumen  boreale.  In 
this  paragraph  he  says  expressly,  that  the  winters  bring  no  permanent 
snow  in  Pennsylvania,  to  make  the  nights  clear  and  traveling  safe. 
The  cold,  he  says,  is  often  intense  as  in  Old  Sweden ;  but  the  snow 

21 


162  SUPPOSED   CHANGE    IN    THE   TEMPEKATUEE    OF   WINTER.     ' 

which  falls  lies  only  a  few  days,  and  always  goes  off  with  a  great  deal 
of  wet. 

From  a  careful  comparison  of  these  facts,  it  appears  that  the  weather, 
in  modern  winters,  is  more  inconstant,  than  when  the  earth  was  covered 
with  wood,  at  the  first  settlement  of  Europeans  in  the  country ;  that 
the  warm  weather  of  autumn  extends  further  into  the  winter  months, 
and  the  cold  weather  of  winter  and  spring  encroaches  upon  the  sum- 
mer ;  that  the  wind  being  more  variable,  snow  is  less  permanent,  and 
perhaps  the  same  remark  may  be  applicable  to  the  ice  of  the  rivers. 
These  effects  seem  to  result  necessarily  from  the  greater  quantity  of 
heat  accumulated  in  the  earth  in  summer,  since  the  ground  has  been 
cleared  of  wood,  and  exposed  to  the  rays  of  the  sun ;  and  to  the  greater 
depth  of  frost  in  the  earth  in  winter,  by  the  exposure  of  its  uncovered 
surface  to  the  cold  atmosphere. 

But  we  can  hardly  infer,  from  the  facts  that  have  yet  been  collected, 
that  there  is,  in  modern  times,  an  actual  diminution  of  the  aggregate 
amount  of  cold  in  winter,  on  either  continent. 


'•« 


CHAPTER   IV. 
ORIGIN  OF  THE   FIRST  BANK  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

The  Bank  of  North  America,  the  first  institution  of  the  kind  in  the 
United  States,  originated  in  the  efforts  of  the  patriotic  merchants  and 
other  citizens  of  Pennsylvania,  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  army  in 
1780.     The  history  of  it  is  briefly  this  : 

By  means  of  the  depreciation  of  the  bills  of  credit  issued  by  Con- 
gress, the  want  of  funds  to  redeem  them,  and  the  want  of  power  in 
Congress  to  levy  taxes,  the  finances  of  the  United  States  in  1780  were 
reduced  to  the  most  miserable  and  alarming  condition.  Confidence  in 
the  government  was  lost ;  the  contractors  for  the  army  were  without 
funds,  and  the  troops  without  pay,  provision,  or  clothing. 

In  this  situation  of  affairs,  Mr.  Pelatiah  Webster,  an  old,  intelligent 
merchant  of  Philadelphia,  whose  practical  knowledge  of  money  con- 
cerns gave  him  great  influence,  and  whose  opinions  were  often  con- 
sulted by  the  gentlemen  in  Congress,  wrote  and  published  a  number  of 
essays  on  free  trade  and  finance,  with  a  view  to  point  out  the  defects 
of  the  systems  which  had  been  pursued,  and  the  evils  of  deluging  the 
country  with  paper,  without  possessing  the  means  of  redeeming  it. 
His  fifth  essay,  published  in  March,  1780,  was  intended  to  urge  and 
enforce  the  necessity  of  taxing  the  people,  to  an  amount  that  should 
meet  the  annual  expenditures.  These  essays,  by  unfolding  the  nature 
of  credit,  and  the  natural  operations  of  money  and  commerce,  prepared 
the  mind  of  our  citizens,  who  were  not  generally  versed  in  these  inter- 
esting subjects,  for  an  essential  change  in  the  system  of  public  credit. 
But  his  principles  were  addressed  to  the  patriotism  of  the  legislatures 
of  the  several  states — a  virtue  which  had  been  often  exercised,  and 
was  nearly  exhausted.  Congress,  by  a  public  act,  fixed  the  deprecia- 
ted value  of  the  bills  of  credit  at  a  fortieth  of  their  nominal  value,  and 
struck  new  bills  to  the  amount  of  ten  millions  of  dollars,  which  were 
to  be  issued  on  the  funds  of  the  several  states,  bearing  an  interest  of 
five  per  cent,  and  redeemable  in  gold  and  silver. 

But  the  circumstances  of  the  army  were  pressing,  and  admitted  of  no 
delay.  During  the  session  of  the  Assembly  of  Pennsylvania,  in  May, 
1780,  a  letter  was  received  by  the  Executive  Council  from  Gen.  Wash- 
ington, and  transmitted  to  the  House.  In  this  letter  the  General  stated, 
that  although  he  had  confidence  in  the  attachment  of  the  army  to  the 
public  cause,  yet  their  distresses  were  such,  from  a  want  of  every  thing 
necessary  or  convenient,  that  he  was  apprehensive  of  a  mutiny.  The 
reading  of  the  letter  was  followed  by  silence  ;  marks  of  despondence 
were  visible  on  the  countenances  of  many  of  the  members,  and  one  of 
them  at  length  ventured  to  utter  the  language  of  despair.  Another 
attempted  to  dissipate  the  gloom,  but  a  motion  of  adjournment  suspend- 
f         ed  a  consideration  of  the  contents  of  the  letter. 


164  ORIGIN   OF   THE   FIRST   BANK   IN  THE  TTNITED   STATES. 

The  substance  of  the  contents  of  Gen.  Washington's  letter,  was 
communicated  to  some  patriotic  citizens  of  Philadelphia,  who  immedi- 
ately opened  a  subscription  for  the  purpose  of  raising  money  to  pay 
bounties  to  recruits.  A  considerable  sum  in  specie  and  bills  of  credit 
was  subscribed. 

While  this  subscription  was  on  foot,  advices  were  received  of  the 
surrender  of  Charleston  to  the  British  commander.  This  misfortune 
increased  the  public  distress,  and  the  necessity  for  more  powerful  exer- 
tion to  recruit  and  supply  the  army.  On  the  17th  of  June,  therefore, 
a  meeting  was  held  at  the  City  Tavern,  and  a  resolution  passed  to  open 
a  security  subscription  to  the  amount  of  three  hundred  thousand  pounds, 
Pennsylvania  currency,  in  specie  ;  the  subscribers  to  execute  bonds  to 
the  amount  of  their  subscriptions,  and  to  form  a  bank  for  supplying  the 
army.  This  was  executed,  and  the  former  subscription  discontinued. 
By  means  of  this  fund,  which  was  called  the  Bank  of  Pennsylvania, 
the  necessities  of  the  army  were  relieved,  during  that  campaign. 

In  the  spring  following,  Mr.  Robert  Morris  was  appointed  superin- 
tendent of  finances  :  the  eminent  abilities  and  influence  of  that  gentle- 
man, were  greatly  useful  to  the  United  States,  in  rescuing  their  moneyed 
concerns  from  disorder,  and  restoring  public  credit ;  and  to  him  is  due 
the  honor  of  projecting  that  useful  institution,  the  "  Bank  of  North 
America,"  which  was  intended  to  be,  and  for  a  time  actually  was,  a 
national  bank. 

On  the  17th  of  May,  1781,  the  plan  of  a  national  bank  was  submit- 
ted to  the  consideration  of  Congress ;  and  on  the  26th  of  the  month. 
Congress  resolved,  *'  That  they  do  approve  of  the  plan  of  establishing 
a  national  bank  in  the  United  States,  submitted  to  their  consideration 
by  Mr.  Robert  Morris,  and  that  they  will  promote  and  support  the  same, 
by  such  ways  and  means,  from  time  to  time,  as  may  appear  necessary 
for  the  institution,  and  consistent  with  the  public  good."  They  further 
resolved,  that  the  company  should  be  incorporated,  as  soon  as  the  sub- 
scription should  be  filled,  recommended  to  the  states  to  permit  no  other 
banks  to  be  established  during  the  war,  and  to  pass  laws  making  it 
felony  to  counterfeit  the  notes ;  and  they  made  the  notes  receivable  in 
payment  of  all  taxes,  duties,  and  debts,  payable  to  the  United  States. 
These  resolutions  were  published,  and  to  these  were  subjoined  some 
remarks  of  the  projector,  on  the  advantages  of  the  proposed  bank. 
The  original  subscription,  amounting  to  four  hundred  thousand  dollars, 
in  shares  of  four  hundred  dollars  each,  was  filled  ;  and  the  subscribers 
were  incorporated  by  an  ordinance  of  Congress,  dated  Dec.  21,  1781 ; 
and  by  an  act  of  the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  dated  April  1,  1782. 
To  this  institution,  most  of  the  subscribers  to  the  private  bank  before 
mentioned,  transferred  their  subscriptions  ;  or  invested  the  specie  value 
of  their  subscriptions  in  the  purchase  of  shares.  Those  who  declined, 
were  repaid  their  money  by  the  superintendent  of  finance.* 

The  immense  advantages  of  this  institution  to  the  credit  and  money 
operations  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  to  the  merchants,  could  not 

*  Manuscript  statement,  by  Robert  Morris,  Esq.  Dissertations  on  Government 
and  tbe  affairs  of  the  Bank,  &c.  by  Thomas  Paine,  Philadelphia,  February,  1786. 
Orininal  plan  of  the  Bank  of  North  America,  by  Robert  Morris,  superinteadcnt 
of  finance,  1781.  *'•  ■    > 


^  ORIGIN   OF   THE   FIRST   BANK   IN   THE   UNITED   STATES.  165 

screen  it  from  popular  jealousy.  In  1785,  petitions  from  a  number  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Chester  County  were  presented  to  the  legislature, 
praying  for  a  repeal  of  the  act  of  incorporation,  and  the  act  for  pre- 
venting and  punishing  the  counterfeiting  of  the  notes  of  the  bank. 
Their  objections  to  the  bank  were  the  most  ill  founded  imaginable. 
The  committee  on  these  petitions  reported,  as  their  opinion,  that  the 
bank  was  incompatible  with  the  public  safety — that  it  had  a  direct  ten- 
dency to  banish  specie  froif/.  the  country^  and  to  collect  it  all  into  the 
hands  of  the  stockholders  ! — that  the  great  profits  of  the  bank  would  • 
tempt  foreigners  to  vest  money  in  its  stocks,  and  thus  draw  away  large 
sums  for  interest — that  it  would  become  an  enormous  engine  of  power, 
subject  to  foreign  influence,  and  tend  to  reduce  America  back  to  a  state 
of  subordination  and  dependence  on  European  powers — that  it  would 
destroy  the  equality  which  ought  to  prevail  in  a  republic — that  our 
government  had  nothing  in  it  to  counterbalance  the  influence  it  must 
create — in  short,  that  the  directors  might  in  time  govern  Pennsylvania.* 
Such  were  the  absurd,  weak,  oontradictory,  and  chimerical  notions 
of  the  people  respecting  the  bank. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Assembly,  March  21,  1785. 


-^-' 


xr<*«ft  166 


CHAPTER    V. 

LETTER   FROM    GENERAL    WASHINGTON. 

• 
It  has  been  controverted  whether  the  capture  of  Gen.  Cornwallis  in 
1781,  was  the  result  of  a  plan  preconcerted  between  Gen.  Washington 
and  Count  de  Grasse  ;  or  rather  whether  the  arrival  of  the  Count  in  the 
Chesapeak  was  predetermined  and  expected  by  Gen.  Washington,  and 
consequently  all  the  preparations  to  attack  New  York  a  mere  finess  to 
deceive  the  enemy ;  or  whether  the  real  intention  was  against  New  York, 
and  the  siege  of  Yorktown  planned  upon  the  unexpected  arrival  of  the 
French  fleet  in  the  bay.  The  following  letter  will  set  the  matter  in  its 
true  light. 

Mount  Vernon,  July  31,  1788. 

Sib — I  duly  received  your  letter  of  the  14th  inst.,  and  can  only  an- 
swer you  briefly  and  generally  from  memory  ;  that  a  combined  opera- 
tion of  the  land  and  naval  forces  of  France  in  America,  for  the  year 
1781,  was  preconcerted  the  year  before  ;  that  the  point  of  attack  was 
not  absolutely  agreed  upon,*  because  it  could  not  be  foreknown  where 
the  enemy  would  be  most  susceptible  of  impression  ;  and  because  we 
(having  the  command  of  the  water  with  sufficient  means  of  conveyance) 
could  transport  ourselves  to  any  spot  with  the  greatest  celerity  ;  that  it 
was  determined  by  me,  nearly  twelve  months  beforehand,  at  all  haz- 
ards, to  give  out  and  cause  it  to  be  believed  by  the  highest  military  as 
well  as  civil  officers,  that  New  York  was  the  destined  place  of  attack, 
for  the  important  purpose  of  inducing  the  eastern  and  middle  states  to 
make  greater  exertions  in  furnishing  specific  supplies,  than  they  other- 
wise would  have  done,  as  well  as  for  the  interesting  purpose  of  render- 
ing the  enemy  less  prepared  elsewhere  ;  that  by  these  means,  and  these 
alone,  artillery,  boats,  stores,  and  provisions,  were  in  seasonable  prepa- 
ration to  move  with  the  utmost  rapidity  to  any  part  of  the  continent ;  for 
the  difficulty  consisted  more  in  providing,  than  knowing  how  to  apply 
the  military  apparatus ;  that  before  the  arrival  of  the  Count  de  Grasse, 
it  was  the  fixed  determination  to  strike  the  enemy  in  the  most  vulnerable 
quarter,  so  as  to  ensure  success  with  moral  certainty,  as  our  affairs  were 
then  in  the  most  ruinous  train  imaginable  ;  that  New  York  was  thought 
to  be  beyond  our  effort,  and  consequently  that  the  only  hesitation  that 
remained,  was  between  an  attack  upon  the  British  army  in  Virginia  and 
that  in  Charleston  :  and  finally,  that  by  the  intervention  of  several  com- 
munications, and  some  incidents  which  can  not  be  detailed  in  a  letter, 
the  hostile  post  in  Virginia,  from  being  a  provisional  and  strongly  ex- 
pected, became  the  definitive  and  certain  object  of  the  campaign. 

*  Because  it  would  be  easy  for  the  Count  de  Grasse,  in  good  time  before  his  de- 
parture from  the  West  Indies,  to  give  notice,  by  express,  at  what  place  he  could 
most  conveniently  first  touch  to  receive  advice. 


LETTER   FROM   GEN.    WASHINGTON.  167 

I  only  add,  that  it  never  was  in  contemplation  to  attack  New  York, 
unless  the  garrison  should  first  have  been  so  far  degarnished  to  carry- 
on  the  southern  operations,  as  to  render  our  success  in  the  siege  of  that 
place,  as  infallible  as  any  future  military  event  can  ever  be  made.  For 
I  repeat  it,  and  dwell  upon  it  again,  some  splendid  advantage  (whether 
upon  a  larger  or  smaller  scale  was  almost  immaterial)  was  so  essential- 
ly necessary,  to  revive  the  expiring  hopes  and  languid  exertions  of  the 
country,  at  the  crisis  in  question,  that  I  never  would  have  consented  to 
embark  in  any  enterprise,  wherein,  from  the  most  rational  plan  and  ac- 
curate calculations,  the  favorable  issue  should  not  have  appeared  as 
clear  to  my  view  as  a  ray  of  light.  The  failure  of  an  attempt  against 
the  posts  of  the  enemy,  could,  in  no  other  possible  situation  during  the 
war,  have  been  so  fatal  to  our  cause. 

That  much  trouble  was  taken  and  finess  used  to  misguide  and  bewil- 
der Sir  Henry  Clinton,  in  regard  to  the  real  object,  by  fictitious  com- 
munications, as  well  as  by  making  a  deceptive  provision  of  ovens,  for- 
age, and  boats,  in  his  neighborhood,  is  certain.  Nor  were  less  pains 
taken  to  deceive  our  own  army  ;  for  I  had  always  conceived,  where  the 
imposition  did  not  completely  take  place  at  home,  it  could  never  suffi-' 
ciently  succeed  abroad. 

Your  desire  of  obtaining  truth,  is  very  laudable ;  I  wish  I  had  more 
leisure  to  gratify  it,  as  I  am  equally  solicitous  the  undisguised  verity 
should  be  known.  Many  circumstances  will  unavoidably  be  misconceiv- 
ed and  misrepresented.  Notwithstanding  most  of  the  papers,  which 
may  properly  be  deemed  official,  are  preserved ;  yet  the  knowledge  of 
innumerable  things,  of  a  more  delicate  and  secret  nature,  is  confined  to 
the  perishable  remembrance  of  some  few  of  the  present  generation. 
With  esteem,  I  am  sir. 

Your  most  obedient  humble  servant, 

G.  Washington. 

To  N.  Webster,  Esq. 


i* 


168      ^$mm' 


CHAPTER    VI. 

CORRESPONDENCE    WITH    THE    HON.   JAS.    MADISON, 
ON    THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    CONSTITUTION. 

Letter  from  N.  Webster  to  Mr.  Madison. 

New  Haven,  August  20,  1804. 

Sir — In  the  fall  of  Gen.  Hamilton  I  feel,  in  common  with  my  fellow 
citizens,  that  the  United  States  have  lost  a  very  distinguished  character, 
and  I  sincerely  deplore  the  cause  and  the  event.  Yet  I  can  not  join  the 
voice  of  his  admirers  to  the  full  extent  of  praise.  He  had  some  failings 
which  very  much  lessened  his  public  usefulness ;  and  I  believe  he  has 
some  credit  which  does  not  belong  to  him.  On  one  important  point  I 
'wish  for  information,  which  is  the  reason  of  my  troubling  you  with  this 
letter. 

Dr.  Mason,  in  his  Eulogy,  has  asserted,  p.  11,  that  Gen.  Hamilton, 
with  a  view  "  to  retrieve  our  affairs  by  establishing  an  efficient  general 
government,  consented  to  be  a  candidate  for  the  legislature."  The 
year  is  not  mentioned,  nor  am  I  disposed  to  questibn  the  fact.  He  adds, 
"  it  is  indubitable  that  the  original  germ  out  of  which  has  grown  up  our 
unexampled  prosperity,  was  in  the  bosom  of  Hamilton.''^  This  may  be 
true,  that  Gen.  Hamilton  very  early  perceived  the  necessity  of  a  more 
efficient  government  than  the  old  confederation ;  but  was  not  the  germ 
of  such  a  government  in  the  minds  of  many  others  ?  Dr.  Mason  adds 
that  Gen.  Washington  accepted  a  seat  in  the  convention  at  the  persua- 
sion of  Gen.  Hamilton.  This  may  be  true.  .  Mr.  Otis,  in  his  Eulogy, 
has  asserted  that  Gen.  Hamilton  in  the  convention  at  Annapolis  ^^frst 
suggested  the  proposal  of  attempting  a  radical  change  in  the  principles 
of  our  government."  This  may  be  true  as  it  respects  the  proposal  in 
the  convention ;  but  surely  the  proposal  of  a  radical  change  was  made 
long  before.  I  published  a  pamphlet  on  the  subject  eighteen  months 
before,  and  took  the  pains  to  carry  it  in  person  to  Gen.  Washington  in 
May,  1785.  At  his  house  you  read  it  in  the  ensuing  summer.  It  is 
entitled  "  Sketches  of  American  Policy."  The  remarks  in  the  first 
three  sketches  are  general,  and  some  of  them  I  now  believe  to  be  too 
visionary  for  practice  ;  but  the  fourth  sketch  was  intended  expressly  to 
urge,  by  all  possible  arguments,  the  necessity  of  a  radical  alteration  in 
our  system  of  general  government,  and  an  outline  is  there  suggested. 
As  a  private  man,  young  and  vmknown,  I  could  do  but  little,  but  that 
little  I  did. 

Who  frst  suggested  the  proposition  for  the  present  government,  I 
am  not  certain ;  but  I  have  always  understood  and  declared  that  you 
made  the  first  proposal,  and  brought  forward  a  resolve  for  the  purpose, 
in  the  House  of  Delegates  of  Virginia,  in  the  session  of  December, 
1785.  In  this  I  am  confident  of  being  correct,  for  I  was  in  Richmond 
at  that  time.     If  wrong,  please  to  set  me  right. 


CORRESPONDENCE   WITH    MR.    MADISON.  169 

Mr.  Paine  claims  to  be  the  first  mover  of  the  proposal  for  a  national 
government,  alledging  that  he  suggested  it  to  some  friends  in  the  year 
1784  or  1785.  Mr.  Pelatiah  Webster  wrote  a  pamphlet  on  the  subject 
of  a  different  frame  of  government  in  1784.  Dr.  Dwight,  in  a  century 
sermon  four  years  ago,  suggested  ideas  similar  to  what  Dr.  Mason  has 
published.  This  is  a  historical  fact  of  some  importance,  and  I  think  it 
ought  to  be  known  and  authenticated  during  your  life.  No  honest  man 
can  wish  to  have  credit  for  what  is  not  due  to  him,  and  what  is  due  to 
him  ought  not  to  be  withheld  or  bestowed  on  another.  I  must  beg  the 
favor  of  you  to  communicate  to  me  the  facts  as  far  as  you  know 
them,  not  for  the  purpose  of  publication,  but  for  the  sake  of  enabling 
me  to  possess  a  true  state  of  the  facts,  and  correcting  the  errors  of  my 
neighbors. 

I  am  reading,  and  am  much  pleased  with,  the  first  volume  of  the  life 
of  Gen.  Washington.  One  or  two  errors  have  escaped  the  respectable 
author.  In  page  125,  he  has  placed  New  Haven  on  Connecticut  River, 
although  thirty  five  or  forty  miles  west  of  it. 

In  page  105  he  has  given  an  account  from  Hutchinson  of  the  origin 
of  representation  in  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts ;  but  the  ac- 
count is  not  perfectly  correct.  In  the  first  volume  of  my  "  Elements 
of  Useful  Knowledge"  in  the  office  of  state,  p.  158,  there  is  a  brief  but 
correct  statement  of  that  change,  taken  from  the  history  written  by 
Governor  Winthrop,  who  was  personally  in  the  transaction ;  a  valuable 
authority  which  I  believe  Chief  Justice  Marshall  does  not  possess.  It 
lay  in  manuscript  till  1790,  when  I  procured  it  to  be  copied  and  printed. 
It  is  now  out  of  print,  but  is  the  safest  guide  of  the  historian  for  the 
first  fourteen  years  after  the  settlement  of  Boston.  I  am  the  more 
anxious  to  have  the  causes  of  that  event  fully  stated,  as  the  facts  repel 
a  suggestion  often  made  by  French  writers,  that  in  the  division  of  houses 
in  our  legislatures,  we  have  been  led  by  a  disposition  to  imitate  the  par- 
liament of  Great  Britain.  It  appears,  however,  that  the  first  instance  of 
it  arose  out  of  a  state  of  things  in  Massachusetts,  altogether  extraneous 
to  any  such  principle. 

I  have  the  honor,  &c. 

N.  Webster. 

Hon.  Jas.  Madison. 

Reply  to  the  foregoing. 

Washington,  Oct.  12,  1804. 

Sir — I  received,  during  a  visit  to  my  farm,  your  letter  of  Aug.  20, 
and  hoped  that  I  should,  in  that  situation,  find  leisure  to  give  it  as  full 
an  answer  as  my  memory  and  my  papers  would  warrant.  An  unfore- 
seen pressure  of  public  business,  with  a  particular  one  of  private  busi- 
ness interesting  to  others  as  well  as  to  myself,  having  disappointed  me, 
I  find  myself  under  the  necessity  of  substituting  the  few  brief  remarks 
which  return  to  the  occupations  of  this  place,  and  the  absence  of  my 
papers,  will  admit. 

I  had  observed,  as  you  have  done,  that  a  great  number  of  loose  as- 
sertions have  at  different  times  been  made  with  respect  to  the  origin  of 
the  reform  in  our  system  of  federal  government,  and  that  this  has  par- 

22 


I 


170  CORKESPONDENCE    WITH    MR.   MADISON. 

ticularly  happened  on  the  late  occasion  which  so  strongly  excited  the 
effusions  of  party  and  personal  zeal  for  the  fame  of  Gen.  Hamilton. 

The  change  in  our  government  like  most  other  important  improve- 
ments ought  to  be  ascribed  rather  to  a  series  of  causes  than  to  any  par- 
ticular and  sudden  one,  and  to  the  participation  of  many,  rather  than  to 
the  efforts  of  a  single  agent.  It  is  certain  that  the  general  idea  of  re- 
vising and  enlarging  the  scope  of  the  federal  authority,  so  as  to  answer 
the  necessary  purposes  of  the  Union,  grew  up  in  many  minds,  and  by 
natural  degrees,  during  the  experienced  inefficacy  of  the  old  confedera- 
tion. The  discernment  of  Gen.  Hamilton  must  have  rendered  him  an 
early  patron  of  the  idea.  That  the  public  attention  was  called  to  it  by 
yourself  at  an  early  period  is  well  known. 

In  common  with  others,  I  derived  from  my  service  in  the  old  Con- 
gress during  the  latter  stages  of  the  Revolutionary  war,  a  deep  impres- 
sion of  the  necessity  of  invigorating  the  federal  authority.  I  carried 
this  impression  with  me  into  the  legislature  of  Virginia ;  where,  in  the 
year  1784,  if  my  recollection  does  not  fail  me,  Mr.  Henry  co-operated 
with  me  and  others  in  certain  resolutions  calculated  to  strengthen  the 
hands  of  Congress. 

In  1785,  I  made  a  proposition  with  success  in  the  legislature  of  the 
same  state,  for  the  appointment  of  commissioners  to  meet  at  Annapolis 
such  commissioners  as  might  be  appointed  by  other  states,  in  order  to 
form  some  plan  for  investing  Congress  with  the  regulation  and  taxation 
of  commerce.  This  I  presume  to  be  the  proceeding  which  gave  you 
the  impression  that  the  first  proposal  of  the  present  constitution  was 
then  made.  It  is  possible  that  something  more  might  have  been  the 
subject  of  conversation,  or  may  have  been  suggested  in  debate,  but  I 
am  induced  to  believe  that  the  meeting  at  Annapolis  was  all  that  was 
regularly  proposed  at  that  session.  I  would  have  consulted  the  jour- 
nals of  it,  but  they  were  either  lost  or  mislaid. 

Although  the  step  taken  by  Virginia  was  followed  by  the  greater 
number  of  the  states,  the  attendance  at  Annapolis  was  both  so  tardy 
and  so  deficient,  that  nothing  was  done  on  the  subject  immediately  com- 
mitted to  the  meeting.  The  consultations  took  another  turn.  The  ex- 
pediency of  a  more  radical  reform  than  the  commissioners  had  been 
authorized  to  undertake  being  felt  by  almost  all  of  them,  and  each  be- 
ing fortified  in  his  sentiments  and  expectations  by  those  of  others,  and 
by  the  information  gained  as  to  the  general  preparation  of  the  public 
mind,  it  was  concluded  to  recommend  to  the  states  a  meeting  at  Phila- 
delphia, the  ensuing  year,  of  commissioners  with  authority  to  digest 
and  propose  a  new  and  effectual  system  of  government  for  the  Union. 
The  manner  in  which  this  idea  rose  into  effect,  makes  it  impossible  to 
say  with  whom  it  more  particularly  originated.  I  do  not  even  recollect 
the  member  who  first  proposed  it  to  the  body.  I  have  an  indistinct  im- 
pression that  it  received  its  first  formal  suggestion  from  Mr.  Abraham 
Clark  of  New  Jersey.  Mr.  Hamilton  was  certainly  the  member  who 
drafted  the  address. 

The  legislature  of  Virginia  was  the  first  I  believe,  that  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  taking  up  the  recommendation,  and  the  first  that  concurred  in 
it.  It  was  thought  proper  to  express  its  concurrence  in  terms  that  would 
give  the  example  as  much  weight  and  effect  as  possible  ;  and  with  the 


»^t 


CORRESPONDENCE    WITH    MR.   MADISON.  171 

same  view  to  include  in  the  deputation,  the  highest  characters  in  the 
state,  such  as  the  governor  and  chancellor.  The  same  policy  led  to  the 
appointment  of  Gen.  Washington,  who  was  put  at  the  head  of  it.  It  was 
not  known  at  the  time  how  far  he  would  lend  himself  to  the  occasion. 
When  the  appointment  was  made  known  to  him,  he  manifested  a  read- 
iness to  yield  to  the  wishes  of  the  legislature,  but  felt  a  scruple  from  his 
having  signified  to  the  Cincinnati,  that  he  could  not  meet  them  at  Phila- 
delphia, near  about  the  same  time,  for  reasons  equally  applicable  to  the 
other  occasion.  Being  in  correspondence  with  him  at  the  time  and  on 
the  occasion,  I  pressed  him  to  step  over  the  difficulty.  It  is  very  prob- 
able that  he  might  consult  with  others,  particularly  with  Mr.  Hamilton, 
and  that  their  or  his  exhortations  and  arguments  may  have  contributed 
more  than  mine  to  his  final  determination. 

When  the  convention  as  recommended  at  Annapolis  took  place  at 
Philadelphia,  the  deputies  from  Virginia  supposed,  that  as  that  state  had 
been  first  in  the  successive  steps  leading  to  a  revision  of  the  federal  sys- 
tem, some  intrcjductory  propositions  might  be  expected  from  them. 
They  accordingly  entered  into  consultation  on  the  subject,  immediately 
on  their  arrival  at  Philadelphia,  and  having  agreed  among  themselves 
on  the  outline  of  a  plan,  it  was  laid  before  the  convention  by  Mr.  Ran- 
dolph, at  that  time  governor  of  the  state,  as  well  as  member  of  the  con- 
vention. This  project  was  the  basis  of  its  deliberations  ;  and  after  pass- 
ing through  a  variety  of  changes  in  its  important  as  well  as  its  lesser 
features,  was  developed  and  amended  into  the  form  finally  agreed  to. 

I  am  afraid  that  this  sketch  will  fall  much  short  of  the  object  of  your 
letter.  Under  more  favorable  circumstances,  I  might  have  made  it 
more  particular.  I  have  often  had  it  in  idea  to  make  out  from  the  ma- 
terials in  my  hands,  and  within  my  reach,  as  minute  a  chronicle  as  I 
could,  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  last  revolution  in  our  govern- 
ment. I  went  through  such  a  task  with  respect  to  the  declaration  of  in- 
dependence, and  the  old  confederation,  whilst  a  member  of  Congress 
in  1783 ;  availing  myself  of  all  the  circumstances  to  be  gleaned  from 
the  public  archives,  and  from  some  auxiliary  sources.  To  trace  in  like 
manner  a  chronicle  or  rather  a  history  of  our  present  constitution,  would 
in  several  points  of  view  be  still  more  curious  and  interesting ;  and  for- 
tunately the  materials  for  it  are  far  more  extensive.  Whether  I  shall 
ever  be  able  to  make  such  a  contribution  to  the  annals  of  our  country, 
is  rendered  every  day  more  and  more  uncertain. 

I  will  only  add  that  on  the  slight  view  which  I  have  taken  of  the  sub- 
ject to  which  you  have  been  pleased  to  invite  my  recollections,  it  is  to 
be  understood,  that  in  confining  myself  so  much  to  the  proceedings  of 
Virginia,  and  to  the  agency  of  a  few  individuals,  no  exclusion  of  other 
states  or  persons  is  to  be  implied,  whose  share  in  the  transactions  of  the 
period  may  be  unknown  to  me. 

With  great  respect  and  esteem,  I  remain,  sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

Noah  Webster,  Esq.  James  Madison. 


172  CORRESPONDENCE   WITH   MR.    MADISON. 

Montpelier,  March  10, 1826. 

Dear  Sir — In  my  letter  of  Oct.  12,  1804,  answering  an  inquiry  of 
yours  of  Aug.  20,  it  was  stated  that  "  in  1785,  I  made  a  proposition  with 
success  in  the  legislature,  (of  Virginia,)  for  the  appointment  of  commis- 
sioners,  to  meet  at  Annapolis  such  commissioners  as  might  be  appointed 
by  other  states,  in  order  to  form  some  plan  for  investing  Congress  with 
the  regulation  and  taxation  of  commerce."  In  looking  over  some  of  my 
papers  having  reference  to  that  period,  I  find  reason  to  believe  that  the 
impression,  under  which  I  made  the  statement,  was  erroneous  ;  and  that 
the  proposition,  though  probably  growing  out  of  efforts  made  by  myself 
to  convince  the  legislature  of  the  necessity  of  investing  Congress  with 
such  powers,  was  introduced  by  another  member,  more  likely  to  have 
the  ear  of  the  legislature  on  the  occasion,  than  one  whose  long  and  late 
service  in  Congress,  might  subject  him  to  the  suspicion  of  a  bias  in  favor 
of  that  body.  The  journals  of  the  session  would  ascertain  the  fact. 
But  such  has  been  the  waste  of  the  printed  copies,  that  I  have  never 
been  able  to  consult  one. 

I  have  no  apology  to  make  for  the  error  committed  by  my  memory, 
but  my  consciousness,  when  answering  your  inquiry,  of  the  active  part 
I  took  in  making  on  the  legislature  the  impressions  from  which  the 
me£isure  resulted,  and  the  confounding  of  one  proposition  with  another, 
as  may  have  happened  to  your  own  recollection  of  what  passed. 

It  was  my  wish  to  have  set  you  right  on  a  point  to  which  your  letter 
seemed  to  attach  some  little  interest,  as  soon  as  I  discovered  the  error 
into  which  I  had  fallen.  But  whilst  I  was  endeavoring  to  learn  the  most 
direct  address,  the  newspapers  apprised  me  that  you  had  embarked  for 
Europe.  Finding  that  your  return  may  be  daily  looked  for,  I  lose  no 
time  in  giving  the  proper  explanation.  I  avail  myself  of  the  occasion 
to  express  my  hopes  that  your  trip  to  Europe,  has  answered  all  your 
purposes  in  making  it,  and  to  tender  you  assurances  of  my  sincere 
esteem  and  friendly  respects. 

James  Madison. 

Noah  Webster,  Esq. 


w 


f 


173 


CHAPTER    VII. 

ORIGIN    OF    THE    COPY-RIGHT    LAWS    IN    THE 
UNITED    STATES. 

The  origin  and  progress  of  laws,  securing  to  authors  the  exclusive 
right  of  publishing  and  vending  their  literary  works,  constitute  an  article 
in  the  history  of  a  country  of  no  inconsiderable  importance.  The  fol- 
lowing are  the  most  material  facts  respecting  the  origin  of  the  laws  on 
that  subject  in  the  United  Staes. 

In  the  year  1782,  while  the  American  army  was  lying  on  the  bank  of 
the  Hudson,  I  kept  a  classical  school  in  Goshen,  Orange  County,  state 
of  New  York.  I  there  compiled  two  small  elementary  books  for  teach- 
ing the  English  language.  The  country  was  then  impoverished ;  in- 
tercourse with  Great  Britain  was  interrupted  ;  school-books  were  scarce 
and  hardly  obtainable  ;  and  there  was  no  certain  prospect  of  peace. 

In  the  autumn  of  that  year,  I  rode  to  Philadelphia  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  my  manuscripts  to  gentlemen  of  influence,  and  obtaining  a  law 
for  securing  to  authors  the  copy-right  of  their  publications.  As  the  le- 
gislatures of  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  were  not  then  in  session,  the 
latter  object  could  not  be  accomplished.  On  my  way  I  called  on  Gov. 
Livingston  then  in  Trenton,  and  inquired  whether  it  was  probable  that 
a  copy-right  law  could  be  obtained  in  New  Jersey.  The  Governor  re- 
plied that  if  I  would  wait  till  noon,  he  would  consult  his  council,  then 
in  session,  and  give  me  an  answer.  At  the  time  appointed  I  called 
again,  when  the  Governor  told  me  the  council  gave  him  very  little  en- 
couragement. 

In  Princeton,  I  waited  on  the  Rev.  Samuel  Stanhope  Smith,  then  pro- 
fessor of  theology  in  Nassau  Hall,  and  afterward  president  of  that  insti- 
tution, who  examined  my  manuscripts,  recommended  the  works,  and 
expressed  his  opinion  in  favor  of  copy-right  laws.  The  following  is  a 
copy  of  his  opinion. 

"  Mr.  Noah  Webster  having  shown  to  me  a  plan  of  reforming  the 
spelling  book  of  Mr.  Dilworth,  associating  with  it  an  abridgment  of  Mr. 
Lowth's  Grammar  and  other  articles  of  knowledge,  very  proper  for 
young  persons  in  the  country ;  and  having  shown  to  me  a  part  of  the 
execution  ;  I  do  conceive  that  he  proposes  many  useful  improvements 
in  a  book  of  that  kind  ;  and  that  he  has  executed  with  judgment  that  part 
which  he  has  already  finished.  Every  attempt  of  this  nature  undoubt- 
edly merits  the  encouragement  of  the  public ;  because  it  is  by  such 
attempts  that  systems  of  education  are  gradually  perfected  in  every 
country,  and  the  elements  of  knowledge  rendered  more  easy  to  be  ac- 
quired. Men  of  industry  or  of  talents  in  any  way,  have  a  right  to  the 
property  of  their  productions ;  and  it  encourages  invention  and  improve- 
ment to  secure  it  to  them  by  certain  laws,  as  has  been  practiced  in  Eu- 


174  ORIGIN    OF    THE   COPY-BIGHT    LAWS 

ropean  countries  with  advantage  and  success.  And  it  is  my  opinion 
that  it  can  be  of  no  evil  consequence  to  the  state,  and  may  be  of  benefit 
to  it,  to  vest,  by  a  law,  the  sole  right  of  publishing  and  vending  such 
works  in  the  authors  of  them. 

Samuel  S.  Smith." 
Princeton,  Sept.  27, 1782. 

This  paper  was  afterward  signed  by  Archibald  Gamble,  of  the  Uni- 
versity in  Philadelphia. 

In  October  following,  I  went  to  Hartford,  with  a  view  to  petition  the 
legislature  of  Connecticut,  then  in  session  in  that  place,  for  a  law  to 
secure  to  me  the  copy-right  of  my  proposed  book.  The  petition  was 
presented,  but  too  late  in  the  session  to  obtain  a  hearing.  I  then  return- 
ed to  Goshen,  and  devoted  the  winter  to  a  revision  of  my  manuscripts, 
and  the  introduction  of  some  improvements,  which  had  been  suggested 
by  gentlemen  in  Princeton  and  Philadelphia. 

In  January,  1783,  I  prepared  another  memorial  to  be  presented  to 
the  legislature  of  Connecticut,  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  a  copy-right 
law,  which  memorial  was  committed  to  the  care  of  John  Canfield,  Esq. 
But  the  necessity  of  it  was  superseded  by  the  enactment  of  a  general 
law  upon  the  subject.  This  law  was  obtained  by  the  petition  of  several 
literary  gentlemen  in  that  state. 

In  the  same  winter,  I  went  to  Kingston  in  Ulster  County,  New  York, 
where  the  legislature  was  in  session,  with  a  view  to  present  a  petition 
for  the  like  purpose.  The  necessity  of  such  petition  was  prevented,  by 
the  prompt  attention  of  General  Schuyler  to  my  request,  through  whose 
influence  a  bill  was  introduced  into  the  senate,  which,  at  the  next  ses- 
sion, became  a  law. 

In  the  same  winter,  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts  enacted  a  copy- 
right law ;  procured  probably  by  the  agency  of  the  Rev.  Timothy 
Dwight,  then  a  member  of  the  house  of  representatives. 

As  Congress,  under  the  confederation,  had  no  power  to  protect  lite- 
rary property,  certain  gentlemen,  among  whom  was  Joel  Barlow,  pre- 
sented a  memorial  to  that  body,  petitioning  them  to  recommend  to  the 
several  states,  the  enactment  of  such  a  law. 

In  May,  1783,  on  the  report  of  Mr.  Williamson,  Mr,  Izard  and  Mr. 
Madison,  Congress  passed  a  resolution,  recommending  to  the  several 
states  to  secure  to  authors  or  publishers  of  new  books  not  before  printed, 
the  copy-right  of  such  books  for  a  term  not  less  than  fourteen  years. — 
(Journals,  Vol.  IV,  ed.  1823.) 

In  December,  1783,  Governor  Livingston  informed  me  by  letter  that 
the  legislature  of  New  Jersey  had  passed  a  law  agreeable  to  the  recom- 
mendation of  Congress. 

In  May,  1785,  I  undertook  a  journey  to  the  middle  and  southern 
states,  one  object  of  which  was  to  procure  copy-right  laws  to  be  en- 
acted. I  proceeded  to  Charleston,  but  the  legislature  not  being  in  ses- 
sion, I  returned  to  Baltimore,  where  I  spent  the  summer. 

In  November,  I  visited  General  Washington  at  his  mansion ;  he  gave 
me  letters  to  Governor  Harrison  in  Richmond,  and  to  the  speakers  of 
both  houses  of  the  legislature.  The  law  desired  was  passed  for  secu- 
ring copy-rights. 


m^m 


Hi'   ,1(^^    IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  175 

In  December,  I  visited  Annapolis,  where  the  legislature  was  in  ses- 
sion ;  and  in  February,  I  visited  Dover,  in  Delaware,  for  the  same  pur- 
pose. On  petition,  the  legislature  of  Delaware  appointed  a  committee 
to  prepare  a  bill  for  a  copy-right  law,  just  at  the  close  of  the  session, 
but  the  enactment  was  deferred  to  the  next  session. 

In  the  year  1790,  Congress  enacted  their  first  copy-right  law,  which 
superseded  all  the  state  laws  on  the  subject. 

When  I  was  in  England,  in  1825, 1  learned  that  the  British  parliament 
had,  a  few  years  before,  enacted  a  new  law  on  copy-rights,  by  which 
the  rights  of  authors  were  much  extended.  This  led  me  to  attempt  to 
procure  a  new  law  in  the  United  States,  giving  a  like  extension  to  the 
rights  of  authors.     My  first  attempt  appears  in  the  following  letter. 

Extract  from  a  letter  to  the  Hon.  Daniel  Webster,  dated  Septem' 

her  30,  1826. 

There  is  another  subject,  sir,  to  which  I  take  the  liberty  to  invite 
your  attention. 

Since  the  celebrated  decision,  respecting  copy-right,  by  the  highest 
British  tribunal,  it  seems  to  have  been  generally  admitted  that  an  author 
has  not  a  permanent  and  exclusive  right  to  the  publication  of  his  original 
works,  at  common  law  ;  and  that  he  must  depend  wholly  on  statutes  for 
his  enjoym.ent  of  that  right.  As  I  firmly  believe  this  decision  to  be  con- 
trary to  all  our  best  established  principles  of  right  and  property ;  and 
as  I  have  reason  to  think  such  a  decision  would  not  now  be  sanctioned 
by  the  authorities  of  this  country,  I  sincerely  desire  that  while  you  are 
a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  Congress,  your  talents 
may  be  exerted  in  placing  this  species  of  property  on  the  same  footing 
as  all  other  property,  as  to  exclusive  right  and  permanence  of  possession. 

Among  all  modes  of  acquiring  property,  or  exclusive  ownership,  the 
act  or  operation  of  creating  or  making  seems  to  have  the  first  claim. 
If  any  thing  can  justly  give  a  man  an  exclusive  right  to  the  occupancy 
and  enjoyment  of  a  thing,  it  must  be  the  fact,  that  he  made  it.  The 
right  of  a  farmer  and  mechanic  to  the  exclusive  enjoyment  and  right 
of  disposal  of  what  they  make  or  produce^  ia  never  questioned.  What 
then  can  make  a  difference  between  the  produce  of  muscular  strength 
and  the  produce  of  the  intellect  ?  If  it  should  be  said,  that  as  the  pur- 
chaser of  a  bushel  of  wheat  has  obtained  not  only  the  exclusive  right  to 
the  use  of  it  for  food,  but  the  right  to  sow  it  and  make  increase  and  profit 
by  it,  let  it  be  replied,  this  is  true  ;  but  if  he  sows  the  wheat,  he  must 
sow  it  on  his  own  ground  or  soil.  The  case  is  different  with  respect  to 
the  copy  of  a  book,  which  a  purchaser  has  obtained,  for  the  copy-right 
is  the  author'' s  soil,  which  the  purchaser  can  not  legally  occupy. 

Upon  what  principles,  let  me  ask,  can  my  fellow  citizens  declare  that 
the  productions  of  the  farmer  and  the  artisan  shall  be  protected  by  com- 
mon law,  or  the  principles  of  natural  and  social  right,  without  a  special 
statute,  and  without  paying  a  premium  for  the  enjoyment  of  their  proper- 
ty, while  they  declare  that  I  have  only  a  temporary  right  to  the  fruits 
of  my  labor,  and  even  this  can  not  be  enjoyed  without  giving  a  premium  ? 
Are  such  principles  as  these  consistent  with  the  established  doctrines 
of  property,  and  of  moral  right  and  wrong,  among  an  enlightened  peo- 


176  ORIGIN    OF   THE   COPY-RIGHT   LAWS 

pie  ?  Are  such  principles  consistent  with  the  high  and  honorable  no- 
tions of  justice  and  equal  privileges,  which  our  citizens  claim  to  entertain 
and  to  cherish,  as  characteristic  of  nnodern  improvements  in  civil  soci- 
ety ?  How  can  the  recent  origin  of  a  particular  species  of  property 
vary  the  principles  of  ownership  ?  I  say  nothing  of  the  inexpedience 
of  such  a  policy,  as  it  regards  the  discouragement  of  literary  exertions. 
Indeed  I  can  probably  say  nothing  on  this  subject,  that  you  have  not 
said  or  thought ;  at  least,  I  presume  you  have  often  contemplated  this 
subject  in  all  its  bearings. 

The  British  parliament  about  ten  or  twelve  years  ago,  passed  a  new 
act  on  this  subject,  giving  to  authors  and  proprietors  of  new  works,  an 
absolute  right  to  the  exclusive  use  of  the  copy-right  for  twenty  eight 
years,  with  some  other  provisions  which  I  do  not  recollect ;  but  the  act 
makes  or  continues  the  condition  that  the  author  or  proprietor  shall  de- 
posit eleven  copies  of  the  work  in  Stationer's  Hall,  for  the  benefit  of  cer- 
tain public  libraries.  This  premium  will  often  amount  to  fifty  pounds 
sterling  or  more.  An  effort  was  made  by  publishers  to  obtain  a  repeal 
of  this  provision  ;  but  it  was  opposed  by  the  institutions  which  were  to 
receive  the  benefit,  and  the  attempt  failed. 

I  have  a  great  interest  in  this  question,  and  I  think  the  interest  of 
science  and  literature  in  this  question  are,  by  no  means,  inconsider- 
able. 

I  sincerely  wish  our  legislature  would  come  at  once  to  the  line  of  right 
and  justice  on  this  subject,  and  pass  a  new  act,  the  preamble  to  which 
shall  admit  the  principle  that  an  author  has,  by  common  law,  or  natural 
justice,  the  sole  and  permanent  right  to  make  profit  by  his  own  labor, 
and  that  his  heirs  and  assigns  shall  enjoy  the  right,  unclogged  with  con- 
ditions. The  act  thus  admitting  the  right  would  prescribe  only  the  mode 
by  which  it  shall  be  ascertained,  secured  and  enjoyed,  and  violations  of 
the  right  punished  ;  and  perhaps  make  some  provisions  for  the  case  of 
attempts  to  elude  the  statute  by  slight  alterations  of  books  by  mutilations 
and  transpositions. 

Excuse  me,  sir,  for  the  trouble  I  give  you,  and  believe  me  with  much 
respect,  your  obedient  servant,  N.  Webster. 

Hon.  Daniel  Webster. 

To  this  letter  Mr.  Webster  returned  the  following  answer. 

Boston,  October  14, 1826. 

Dear  Sir — I  have  received  yours  of  the  30th  of  September,  and  shall 
with  your  permission,  lay  it  before  the  committee  of  the  judiciary  next 
session,  as  that  committee  has  in  contemplation  some  important  changes 
in  the  law  respecting  copy-right.  Your  opinion,  in  the  abstract,  is  cer- 
tainly right  and  uncontrovertible.  Authorship  is,  in  its  nature,  ground 
of  property.  Most  people,  1  think,  are  as  well  satisfied,  (or  better) 
with  the  reasoning  of  Mr.  Justice  Yates,  as  with  that  of  Lord  Mansfield, 
in  the  great  case  of  Miller  and  Taylor.  But  after  all,  property,  in  the 
social  state,  must  be  the  creature  of  law  ;  and  it  is  a  question  of  expedi- 
ency, high  and  general,  not  particular  expediency,  how  and  how  far, 
the  rights  of  authorship  should  be  protected.  I  confess  frankly,  that 
I  see,  or  think  I  see,  objections  to  make  it  perpetual.     At  the  same 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  177 

time  I  am  willing  to  extend  it  further  than  at  present,  and  am  fully 
pursuaded  that  it  ought  to  be  relieved  from  all  charges,  such  as  depos- 
iting copies,  &c.  Yours, 

D.  Webster. 
Dr.  N.  Webster. 

In  the  autumn  of  1827, 1  applied  to  the  Hon.  Mr.  IngersoU,  a  repre- 
sentative from  Connecticut,  stating  to  him  the  facts  of  an  extension  of 
copy-right  in  Great  Britain,  as  also  in  France,  and  requesting  him  to 
use  his  influence  to  have  a  bill  for  a  new  law  brought  forward  in  Con- 
gress. Mr.  IngersoU  very  cheerfully  complied.  On  the  17th  Decem- 
ber, on  the  motion  of  Mr.  IngersoU,  the  House  of  Representatives  "re- 
solved, that  the  committee  on  the  judiciary  inquire  into  the  expediency 
of  extending  the  time  for  which  copy-rights  may  be  hereafter  secured 
to  authors^  beyond  the  period  now  allowed  by  law  ;  and  also  of  affording 
further  protection  to  authors  against  the  publication  of  abridgments  or 
summaries  of  works,  after  the  copy-rights  thereof  have  been  secured." 
As  the  committee  delayed  several  weeks  to  make  a  report,  Mr.  IngersoU 
conversed  fully  on  the  subject  with  one  of  the  members,  and  addressed 
a  note  to  the  committee,  in  which  he  stated  the  provision  of  the  British 
statute  34th,  Geo.  3,  enlarging  the  rights  of  authors,  and  the  liberal  pro- 
visions of  the  French  laws  on  the  subject.  He  stated  some  of  the  de- 
fects of  the  old  law  of  the  United  States,  and  urged  the  expediency 
and  justice  of  a  more  liberal  law, 

A  petition  signed  by  many  respectable  literary  men,  was,  about  this 
time,  presented  to  Congress,  praying  for  the  same  object.  Some  mem- 
bers of  the  committee  were  opposed  to  the  measure  ;  but  at  length,  on 
the  first  of  February,  1828,  the  committee  reported  a  bill  consisting  of  • 
three  sections  only,  extending  the  term  of  copy-rights  from  fourteen  to 
twenty  eight  years,  and  securing  the  benefit  of  the  act  to  authors  who 
had  previously  obtained  a  copy-right  under  the  old  law.  J 

On  the  21st  of  February,  Mr.  Verplanck  submitted  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  an  amendment  to  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee, 
entitled  an  "  Amendment  to  a  Bill  to  amend  and  consolidate  the  Acts 
respecting  Copy-Rights."  This  amendment  was  printed  by  order  of 
the  House.  It  was  intended  to  embrace  all  the  material  provisions  of 
the  two  former  laws,  and  those  of  the  bill  reported  by  the  judiciary 
committee  ;  it  contained  also  some  additional  improvements.  Nothing 
further  was  done,  and  the  bill  and  amendment  died  at  the  close  of  the 
session. 

At  the  next  session  (1829-30)  the  Hon.  Mr.  Ellsworth,  a  member 
from  Connecticut,  was  appointed  one  of  the  judiciary  committee,  of 
which  the  Hon.  Mr.  Buchanan  was  chairman.  Before  Mr.  Ellsworth 
left  home,  I  applied  to  him  to  make  efforts  to  procure  the  enactment  of 
a  new  copy-right  law  ;  and  sent  a  petition  to  Congress,  praying  for  the 
renewal  of  the  copy-right  of  one  of  my  books.  This  petition,  being 
referred  to  the  judiciary  committee,  brought  the  subject  distinctly  into 
consideration.  After  consultation,  the  committee  authorized  Mr.  Ells- 
worth to  prepare  a  bill  for  a  general  law  on  the  subject. 

In  order  to  present  the  subject  in  its  true  light  to  the  committee  and 
to  Congress,  Mr.  Ellsworth  wrote  notes  to  the  ministers  of  tlie  principal 

23 


iluA)^ 


178        ORIGIN    OF   THE   COPY-RIGHT   LAWS   IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

European  nations,  requesting  information  from  each  of  them  respect* 
ing  the  state  of  copy-rights  in  the  nations  they  represented.  From 
their  answers,  and  an  inspection  of  the  laws  of  some  of  the  govern- 
ments, Mr.  Ellsworth  formed  a  report,  stating  the  terms  of  time  for 
which  copy-rights  are  secured  to  authors  in  Great  Britain,  France, 
Russia,  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  certain  states  in  Germany.  He  also 
formed  a  bill  for  a  law  intended  to  embrace  all  the  material  provisions 
of  the  old  laws,  with  those  of  the  bill  reported  by  the  former  judiciary 
committee. 

In  this  bill  Mr.  Ellsworth  introduced  some  valuable  provisions  which 
had  been  omitted  in  the  old  laws,  and  in  the  bill  and  amendment  offer- 
ed at  the  former  session.  He  also  obtained  from  his  friends  some  sug- 
gestions which  enabled  him  to  correct  some  errors  and  supply  defects. 
This  bill  was  approved  by  the  judiciary  committee,  reported  by  Mr.  Ells- 
worth, and  printed  by  order  of  the  House.  But  such  was  the  pressure 
of  business,  and  so  little  interest  was  felt  in  the  bill,  that  no  efforts  of 
Mr.  Ellsworth  could  bring  it  before  the  House  at  that  session. 

Finding  the  efforts  of  the  friends  of  the  bill  in  Congress  to  be  una- 
vailing to  obtain  a  hearing,  I  determined  in  the  winter  of  1830-31  to 
visit  Washington  myself,  and  endeavor  to  accomplish  the  object.  Ac- 
cordingly I  took  lodgings  at  the  seat  of  government,  where  I  passed 
nine  or  ten  weeks ;  and  during  this  time,  read  a  lecture  in  the  Hall  of 
the  Representatives,  which  was  well  attended,  and  as  my  friends  in- 
formed me,  had  no  little  effect  in  promoting  the  object  of  obtaining  a 
law  for  securing  copy-rights. 

The  difficulties  which  had  prevented  the  bill  from  being  brought  for- 
ward now  disappeared. 

The  bill,  at  the  second  reading  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  met 
with  some  opposition ;  but  it  was  ably  supported  by  Mr.  Ellsworth, 
Mr.  Verplanck  and  Mr.  Huntington.  It  passed  to  a  third  reading  by  a 
large  majority,  and  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  without  opposition. 

When  the  bill  came  before  the  Senate,  it  was  referred  to  the  judiciary 
committee.  Mr.  Rowan,  the  chairman,  being  absent,  the  committee 
requested  the  Hon.  Daniel  Webster  to  take  the  bill,  examine  it  and  re- 
port it,  if  he  thought  proper :  he  did  so,  and  under  all  circumstances, 
deemed  it  expedient  to  report  it  without  amendment.  On  the  second 
reading  Mr.  Webster  made  a  few  explanatory  remarks — no  other  per- 
son uttered  a  word  on  the  subject ;  and  it  passed  to  a  third  reading  by 
a  unanimous  vote.  On  the  third  reading,  the  Senate,  on  motion,  dis- 
pensed with  the  reading,  and  it  passed  to  be  engrossed,  without  debate. 

In  my  journeys  to  effect  this  object,  and  in  my  long  attendance  in 
Washington,  I  expended  nearly  a  year  of  time.  Of  my  expenses  in 
money  1  have  no  account ;  but  it  is  a  satisfaction  to  me  that  a  liberal 
statute  for  securing  to  authors  the  fruits  of  their  labor  has  been  obtained. 


179 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

VINDICATION  OF  THE  TREATY  OF  AMITY,  COMMERCE 
AND   NAVIGATION,   WITH   GREAT   BRITAIN.* 

No.  I. 

The  treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  America  has  been  a  matter  of 
great  public  expectation,  and  it  has  been  rendered  more  interesting  by 
the  time  and  manner  in  which  tlie  negotiation  originated. 

Before  the  revolution  in  America,  the  people  of  the  then  colonies 
were  under  the  government  of  Great  Britain ;  they  considered  them- 
selves as  children  of  the  same  family ;  their  trade  was  almost  limited 
to  the  British  dominions ;  the  Americans  had  estates  in  Great  Britain, 
and  moneys  in  her  funds ;  an  extensive  commerce  had  created  innu- 
merable debts  and  connections  between  the  two  countries,  which  could 
not  be  at  once  discharged  and  dissolved. 

A  long,  expensive,  and  bloody  war,  to  resist  the  unjust  claims  of  the 
British  parliament,  attended  with  many  instances  of  atrocious  cruelty 
and  perfidy  on  the  part  of  the  British  governors  and  commanders,  alien- 
ated the  affections  of  the  great  body  of  Americans  from  the  mother 
country.  On  the  restoration  of  peace,  however,  and  the  acquisition  of 
independence,  the  enmity  of  the  Americans  gradually  subsided ;  and 
the  usefulness  of  the  commerce  of  England  to  these  states,  being  every 
where  experienced,  soon  revived  the  habits  of  friendly  intercourse  be- 
tween America  and  Great  Britain,  which  had  been  interrupted  by  the 
war — an  intercourse  which  was  not  much  affected  by  the  controversies 
between  the  two  governments  on  account  of  the  inexecution  of  the 
treaty  of  peace.  Almost  as  soon  as  the  acceptance  and  organization 
of  a  constitution  for  the  United  States  had  given  them  a  national  capa- 
city, it  was  the  wish  and  desire  of  America  to  form  a  commercial  trea- 
ty with  Great  Britain ;  and  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Hammond, 
dated  Nov.  29,  1791,  requested  to  know  whether  he  was  authorized  to 
enter  into  a  negotiation  for  that  purpose. 

The  circumstances  which  operated  to  defeat  the  attempts  of  our  ex- 
ecutive, and  the  controversies  between  the  governments  of  the  two 
countries,  relative  to  the  non-fulfillment  of  the  treaty  on  one  side  and 
the  other,  are  in  every  man's  recollection ;  it  is  needless  to  mention 
them  here.  It  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose,  that  the  President  was  au- 
thorized by  the  public  wishes,  to  negotiate  a  commercial  treaty  with 
Great  Britain ;  and  he  is  vested  with  full  powers  for  this  purpose  by 
the  constitution. 

The  uniform  desire  of  Congress  on  this  subject,  is  a  complete  answer 
to  all  cavils  about  the  exertion  of  the  President's  constitutional  powers. 

*  From  the  New  York  Minerva  of  1795. 


180  VliroiCATION   OF   THE   TREATY 

It  was  tlie  nation,  the  United  States,  that  requested  and  urged  for  a 
negotiation. 

This  also  is  an  answer  to  the  men  who  say  the  people  of  America 
supposed  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Jay,  as  envoy  extraordinary,  was  in- 
tended only  to  demand  and  procure  a  redress  of  wrongs,  and  indemni- 
fication for  spoliations  on  our  trade ;  and  not  for  the  negotiation  of  a 
commercial  treaty.  Whatever  opinion  people  formed  of  the  embassy, 
the  instructions  given  to  the  envoy  were  in  pursuance  of  constitutional 
powers ;  and  if  the  people  are  surprised  with  a  treaty  of  amity  and 
commerce,  before  they  expected  it,  this  forms  no  objection  to  the 
treaty  itself. 

The  time  selected  for  this  negotiation,  and  the  exercise  of  the  Presi- 
dent's powers,  at  the  critical  moment  when  the  public  mind  in  America 
was  in  a  violent  flame,  on  account  of  the  seizure  of  our  vessels  by 
British  privateers,  and  when  hostilities  were  expected  between  the  two 
countries,  however  offensive  to  a  party  in  America,  are  among  the  most 
fortunate  circumstances  of  this  whole  business. 

The  sequestration  bill,  then  before  Congress,  involved  in  it  the  events 
of  peace  or  war.  The  bill,  had  it  passed,  would  have  been  consid- 
ered by  Great  Britain  equivalent  to  issuing  letters  of  marque  and  re- 
prisal, and  tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  hostilities  ;  and  probably  that 
act,  had  it  been  sanctioned  by  the  several  branches  of  the  legislature, 
would  have  plunged  us  into  the  present  most  calamitous  war. 

Such  a  consequence  was  considered  by  the  President  as  little  less 
than  inevitable.  As  a  constituent  branch  of  the  legislature,  and  chief 
magistrate  of  the  nation,  he  had  a  right  to  exert  the  powers  he  possess- 
ed— and  if  he  thought  the  House  of  Representatives  were  rash  in  their 
measures,  it  was  his  duty^  as  the  chief  guardian  of  the  public  safety,  to 
exert  any  of  his  constitutional  powers  for  the  purposes  of  arresting 
those  measures.  It  was  as  much  his  right  and  his  duty  to  interpose 
negotiation  as  a  means  of  checking  any  measures  that  he  deemed  in- 
consistent with  our  national  interest,  if  he  judged  that  the  best  means, 
as  it  is  to  give  his  negative  to  a  bill  that  has  passed  the  other  branches  of 
the  legislature,  when  he  judges  the  bill  unconstitutional  or  inexpedient. 

The  right,  of  the  President  to  interpose  negotiation,  at  the  time  he 
did,  can  not  be  disputed.  The  expediency  of  the  measure  will  perhaps 
never  be  admitted  by  its  opposers ;  but  every  subsequent  event  has 
served  to  convince  the  friends  of  our  present  administration,  that  the 
measure  was  highly  expedient,  and  the  time  well  chosen. 

That  the  President  was  right  in  resorting  to  a  peaceable  demand  of 
indemnification  for  spoliations  on  our  commerce,  is  capable  of  the  high- 
est proof  The  law  of  nations  makes  it  a  duty,  on  the  part  of  a  nation 
thus  injured,  to  make  a  peaceable  requisition  of  damages  or  restoration 
of  property,  from  the  aggressing  nation,  before  the  commencement  of 
hostilities. 

Vattel,  book  iii,  chap.  3,  lays  it  down  in  the  most  unequivocal  lan- 
guage, that  an  injured  nation  has  no  right  to  resort  to  force  for  satisfac- 
tion, until  other  means  of  obtaining  it  have  proved  fruitless. 

In  conformity  with  this  principle  of  the  law  of  nations,  it  is  often 
stipulated  by  treaty,  that  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  shall  not  be 
granted  by  an  injured  nation,  until  means  of  redress  have  been  sought 


WITH  GREAT  BRITAIN   IN    1795.  181 

in  the  ordinary  course  of  justice.  Of  this  tenor  is  the  third  article  of 
the  treaty  of  navigation  and  commerce  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain, 
dated  1713. 

It  was  in  pursuance  of  this  most  salutary  principle,  that  the  President 
appointed  an  envoy  extraordinary  at  the  time  he  did ;  and  it  was  un- 
doubtedly, in  other  respects,  highly  expedient;  as  no  moment  could  be 
more  eligible  for  a  negotiation  with  England,  than  when  she  was  en- 
gaged in  an  expensive  and  unsuccessful  war ;  a  war  that  entrenches 
deeply  on  her  resources,  and  demands  a  minute  attention  to  her  com- 
mercial interests. 

But  my  opposers  will  say,  "  We  admit  the  propriety  of  negotiation, 
before  the  commencement  of  hostilities  ;  but  we  contend  that  our  envoy 
should  have  been  restricted  to  a  demand  of  the  western  posts,  and  in- 
demnification for  losses  by  illegal  captures,  and  condemnation  of  our 
vessels  and  property.  It  was  never  understood  that  Mr.  Jay  had  in- 
structions to  make  a  commercial  treaty." 

This  objection  amounts  to  nothing,  and  deserves  no  answer.  The 
President  had  as  good  a  right  to  authorize  Mr.  Jay  to  conclude  a  treaty 
of  amity  and  commerce  as  any  other  man ;  and  he  had  the  same  right 
to  choose  one  time  as  another. 

Having  made  these  preliminary  remarks  on  the  origin  of  this  nego- 
tiation and  treaty,  I  will  proceed  to  answer  such  objections  to  the  treaty 
as  have  come  to  my  knowledge. 

The  daily  invectives  of  newspaper  paragraphists  will  be  passed  with- 
out notice.  This  is  treating  them  as  they  deserve  to  be  treated,  and  as 
they  are  in  fact  treated  by  the  public. 

A  writer  in  a  morning  paper  under  the  signature  of  Decitis,  appears 
to  have  assailed  the  treaty  with  more  ingenuity  than  any  other  writer 
whose  arguments  I  have  read ;  and  it  is  probable  that  his  writings  com- 
prise the  amount  and  force  of  all  the  objections  that  are  made  to  it.  I 
shall  therefore  take  his  objections  in  the  order  they  are  published,  and 
endeavor  to  prove  them  of  little  weight,  or  wholly  unfounded. 

The  first  remarks  of  this  writer  are  aimed  at  the  candor  and  integ- 
rity of  the  twenty  members  of  the  Senate,  who,  he  insinuates,  ratified 
the  treaty  from  motives  of  party  spirit.  He  does  not  indeed  exempt 
the  minority  from  the  same  censure  of  their  conduct.  But  what  re- 
futes the  insinuation  is,  the  rejection  of  the  twelfth  article  by  the  men 
thus  criminated.  Certainly  the  spirit  of  party  was  not  the  governing 
motive ;  for  party  spirit  is  unconceding,  and  goes  all  lengths  to  carry 
its  points.  The  rejection  of  that  article,  because  it  entrenches  too 
much  on  our  carrying  trade,  in  the  opinion  of  those  gentlemen,  is  a 
proof  that  the  interest  of  commerce  and  the  public  good,  were  the  mo- 
tives of  their  conduct  in  assenting  to  every  other  part  of  the  treaty. 

His  next  remark  is  leveled  at  the  secrecy  of  the  Senate,  in  conduct- 
ing the  debates  on  the  treaty.  "  Is  not  this  secrecy  alone,"  says  Decius\ 
"  a  proof  that  the  Senate  conceived  it  disgraceful  and  prejudicial  to  the 
United  States  ?" 

Let  me  ask  that  writer  a  candid  question:  Has  not  every  treaty 
which  we  have  made  with  other  nations,  been  concluded  and  ratified  in 
secret  ?  And  is  there  one  of  those  treaties  disgraceful  or  prejudicial  to 
our  nation  ?     No  objection  was  formerly  made  to  these  secret  ratifica- 


^BV 


VINDICATION   OF  THE  JREATY 


tions.  Why  should  reasons  now  exist  for  opening  the  discussion  of 
treaties  to  the  people,  which  did  not  exist  in  1783  and  1785  ?  The  rea- 
son is  obvious.  Americans  were  formerly  under  no  influence  but  that 
of  propriety ;  they  acted  themselves — now  a  party  of  them  have  de- 
serted the  principles  which  formerly  guided  our  councils,  and  appear  to 
be  ambitious  only  of  finding  opportunities  to  rail  at  all  steady  wisdom, 
and  to  commit  our  interests  to  passion  and  party. 

The  secrecy  of  negotiations  with  foreign  powers,  through  every 
stage  of  the  business,  is  dictated  by  sound  policy.  By  making  treaties 
public  before  they  are  ratified,  advantages  would  often  be  lost,  and  by 
destroying  confidence  and  freedom  of  communication,  the  business 
would  be  often  impeded  or  wholly  defeated.  Nothing  marks  the  sense 
of  mankind  on  this  subject,  better  than  the  practice  of  individuals,  who 
generally  use  secrecy  in  all  important  contracts  of  their  own.  This 
common  practice  is  a  proof  of  its  utility.  Much  more  necessary  is  it 
in  treaties,  which  are  national  contracts  or  conventions. 

Another  remark  of  Decius,  worthy  of  notice,  is,  that  the  "  first  im- 
pressions made  by  the  treaty  were  unfavorable — all  men  and  all  ranks 
[what  ranks  ?  this  writer  has  certainly  forgotten  one  article  of  democ- 
racy— equality,]  united  in  condemning  it." 

This  remark  has  some  foundation,  and  the  fact  is  easily  accounted 
for.  The  first  impressions  on  the  minds  of  the  public,  were  made  by 
an  abstract  of  the  treaty,  which  was  published  incorrectly,  and  there 
are  strong  suspicions  that  it  was  done  with  the  insidious  view  of  exciting 
improper  impressions.  The  abstract  was  said  to  have  been  made  from 
memory.  This  can  not  be  true.  It  is  not  in  the  power  of  man,  after 
the  most  careful  perusal,  to  make  out  so  large  an  abstract,  without  the 
help  of  notes,  of  twenty -eight  articles  of  a  treaty,  without  intermixing 
the  articles  in  the  sketch.  The  business  must  have  been  done  with  de- 
sign ;  and  it  was  inexcusable  in  any  man  to  offer  to  the  public  a  sketchy 
much  more  an  incorrect  one,  of  so  important  an  instrument. 

These  unfavorable  impressions,  however,  answered  the  views  of  men 
who  perfectly  well  understood  the  importance  of  prepossessing  the  pub- 
lic mind.  They  excited  a  temporary  clamor,  and  have  perhaps  made 
a  few  weak  friends  to  an  expiring  cause. 

But  the  clamor  of  the  moment  subsided,  on  reading  a  correct  copy  of 
the  treaty — men  all  agreed  it  was  not  so  bad  as  they  expected.  Still 
many  well-meaning  people  do  not  understand  it ;  and  every  possible 
effort  is  used  to  distort  and  misconstrue  some  passages  of  the  treaty 
which  affect  the  commerce  of  the  country. 

The  violent  censure  of  the  treaty  which  prevailed  on  its  first  publi- 
cation, in  skeleton,  and  the  moderation  of  the  clamor  on  further  peru- 
sal of  it,  instead  of  being  a  proof  that  the  treaty  is  in  itself  bad,  is  a 
substantial  argument  m  its  favor ;  it  is  a  proof  that  it  bears  examination ; 
and  it  is  a  proof,  further,  of  what  we  should  all  regret,  that  the  passions 
of  men  outstrip  their  judgment. 

Should  the  final  result  of  the  business  prove  to  be,  what  I  am  confi- 
dent it  will  be,  a  general  conviction  that  the  treaty  is,  on  the  whole,  a 
favorable  one  for  the  United  States,  and  the  most  favorable  of  any 
treaty  we  have  yet  formed  ;  the  public  will  view  with  indignation,  the 
insidious  attempts  that  have  been  made  to  excite  a  ferment,  and  oppo- 


WITH   GEEAT   BRITAIN    IN    1795.  183 

sition  to  its  ratification,  as  well  as  to  load  with  unmerited  censure  the 
able  minister  who  conducted  the  negotiation.*  Cuetius. 

No.  11. 

The  preamble  of  the  treaty,  says  Decius,  is  not  free  from  objections. 
It  states  that  the  differences  between  the  countries  are  to  be  terminated 
"  without  reference  to  the  merits  of  their  complaints."  Decius  says, 
the  merits  of  the  controversy  should  never  be  lost  sight  of.  But  when 
this  expression  is  explained,  I  believe  every  candid  man  will  justify  it 
in  the  present  instance. 

The  vierits  of  the  complaints,  in  this  instance,  refer  solely  to  the 
question,  "  which  party  first  violated  the  treaty  of  peace."  On  the  first 
opening  of  the  negotiation  between  the  ministers  of  the  two  countries, 
this  became  an  important  point  of  discussion.  The  American  envoy 
alledged  the  first  breach  of  the  treaty  to  be  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, 
and  mentioned  the  carrying  away  of  the  negroes. 

The  English  minister  maintained  that  this  was  not  a  violation  of  the 
treaty.  As  this  subject  has  occasioned  as  much  altercation  as  any  point 
between  the  two  countries,  and  as  the  silence  of  the  present  treaty  on 
that  subject,  is  the  ground  of  violent  clamor,  I  will  anticipate  a  consid- 
eration of  this  point,  which  would  more  properly  fall  under  a  subsequent 
article. 

Whenever  our  ministers  have  urged  the  claim  of  restitution  or  com- 
pensation for  the  negroes,  the  British  ministry  have,  invariably,  an- 
swered them  with  the  following  remarks  : 

"  The  negroes  carried  from  America  by  the  British  armies,  were 
taken  by  the  troops  on  their  marches  through  the  country,  or  came  in, 
by  pi'oclamation,  and  put  themselves  under  our  protection. 

"  The  clause  of  the  treaty  on  which  you  ground  your  claim  is  in 
these  words — '  his  Britannic  majesty  shall,  with  all  convenient  speed, 
and  without  causing  any  destruction,  or  carrying  away  any  negroes  or 
other  property  of  the  American  inhabitants,  withdraw  all  his  armies,'  &c. 

"  By  the  laws  of  the  American  states  negroes  are  considered  as  prop- 
erty as  much  as  cattle  ;  you  claim  them  as  property  for  the  men  who 

*  When  the  first  number  of  Curtiiis  appeared,  a  copy  of  it  was  sent  to  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson, who  immediately  wrote  to  Mr.  Madison  a  letter,  dated  Monticeilo,  Sept. 
21, 1795,  from  which  the  following  are  extracts. 

"  I  send  you  by  post  one  of  the  pieces,  Curtius,  lest  it  should  not  have  come  to 
you  otiierwise.  It  is  evidently  written  by  Hamilton,  giving  a  first  and  general 
view  of  the  subject,  that  the  public  mind  might  be  kept  a  little  in  check,  till  he 
could  resume  the  subject  more  at  large  from  the  beginning,  under  his  second  sig- 
nature, Camillns.  The  piece  called  "  The  Features  of  the  Treaty,"  I  do  not  send, 
because  you  have  seen  it  in  the  newspapers.     It  is  said  to  be  written  by  Coxe ; 


but  I  should  rather  suspect  by  Beckley.     The  antidote  is  certainly  not  strong 

foison  of  Curtius.     If  I  nac' 
should   have  suspected  it  from  Jay  or  Hamilton.     I  gave  a  copy 


enough  for  the  poison  of  Curtius.     If  I  had  not  been  informed   the  present  came 


or  two,  by  way  of  experiment,  to  honest-hearted  men  of  common  understanding, 
and  they  were  not  able  to  parry  the  sophistry  of  Curtius.  I  have  ceased  therefore 
to  give  them.  Hamilton  is  really  a  colossus  to  the  anti-republican  party.  With- 
out numbers,  he  is  a  host  within  himself  We  have  had  only  middling  perfor- 
mances to  oppose  to  him.  In  truth,  when  he  comes  forward,  there  is  nobody  but 
yourself  who  can  meet  him.  For  God's  sake,  take  up  your  pen,  and  give  a  fun- 
damental reply  to  Curtius  and  Camillus." — (Correspoadence,  Vol.  Ill,  315.) 


M^  VINDICATION    OF   THE   TREATY 

were  their  proprietors.  By  the  laws  of  war  universally  admitted, 
every  species  of  movable  property  found  and  taken  in  an  enemy's 
country,  becomes  the  property  of  the  captors.  By  the  seizure  and  pos- 
session of  the  negroes,  the  British  armies  became  the  rightful  owners ; 
the  negroes  were  booty ^  as  much  as  the  horses  and  cattle  taken  by  the 
same  troops. 

"  Suppose  an  American  boat  loaded  with  goods,  to  be  taken  on  one 
of  your  rivers  in  the  time  of  war,  would  not  that  boat  and  goods  be  a 
fair  prize  ?  Suppose  a  horse  to  stray  into  the  British  lines  and  be 
taken,  would  not  that  horse  belong  to  the  captors  ?  Could  a  claim  be 
reasonably  interposed  for  restitution  or  compensation  in  these  cases  ? 
Whether  they  were  seduced  or  forced  from  the  plantations,  if  they  were 
property,  that  property,  on  their  coming  into  possession  of  the  British 
army,  was  changed,  according  to  all  the  laws  of  war. 

"  The  clause  of  the  treaty  contemplates  negroes  which  were  Ameri- 
can property  at  the  date  of  the  stipulation.  '  Negroes  or  other  prop- 
erty' are  the  words.  But  the  negroes  which  our  troops  had  taken  in 
their  marches,  or  which  had  put  themselves  under  their  protection,  were 
not,  at  that  time,  the  property  of  Americans. 

"  On  this  construction,  which  we  hold  to  be  the  only  rational  one, 
that  clause  of  the  treaty  will  not  maintain  your  claim.  The  treaty  may 
include  slaves  which  were  within  the  British  lines,  in  possession  of  their 
American  masters ;  but  there  is  no  pretense  that  such  were  carried 
away  by  the  British  troops, 

"  Besides,  we  can  not  surrender  negroes  which  came  into  our  lines  on 
the  faith  of  proclamations,  without  a  violation  of  that  faith  ;  which  can 
not  be  done.  We  promised  them  freedom  and  protection — we  gave 
them  that  freedom,  and  we  must  protect  them." 

Such  is  the  substance  of  the  minister's  reply,  to  the  claims  of  our 
envoy,  which  were  repeatedly  urged  without  success.  And  the  British 
ministry  have  invariably  put  the  same  construction  on  that  clause  of  the 
treaty  of  peace.     Indeed  it  seems  difficult  to  answer  this  reasoning. 

Either  the  negroes  were  slaves  and  property^  or  they  were  not.  If 
they  were  slaves  and  property,  as  considered  by  the  laws  of  most  of  the 
American  states,  the  British  had  the  same  right  to  seize  and  carry  them 
away  as  booty,  as  they  had  to  seize  and  carry  away  horses  and  cattle ; 
a  right  of  war  that  was  never  disputed.  In  this  case,  the  property  was 
changed  the  moment  they  came  into  the  possession  of  the  British  armies, 
and  at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  they  were  not  American  property,  and 
consequently  not  included  in  the  stipulation  of  the  treaty. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  negroes  y/ ere  freemen,  they  had  a  right  to 
put  themselves  under  British  protection,  and  we  have  no  shadow  of 
claim  to  restitution  or  compensation. 

I  am  one  who  believe  that  no  property  can  be  obtained  in  human  flesh, 
and  any  law  authorizing  the  purchase  and  detention  of  a  human  being, 
as  property,  is,  ipso  facto,  void.  Should  this  position  be  well  founded, 
we  have  not  a  shadow  of  pretension  to  the  negroes  carried  away  by  the 
British  troops. 

But  the  laws  of  many  of  the  states  do  consider  them  as  property ; 
whether  rightfully  or  wrongfully,  is  not  now  the  question.  If  we  con- 
sider them  as  property,  they  are  to  be  ranked  among  personal  estates, 
for  they  certainly  are  not  real  estate. 


WITH   GREAT   BRITAIN    IN    1795.  185 

Now  Mr.  Jefferson,  the  oracle  of  my  antagonists,  admits,  in  the  fullest 
extent,  the  doctrine,  that  all  personal  estate  is  rightfully  seizable  by  ene- 
mies in  war.     The  following  are  his  words  : — 

"  It  can  not  be  denied,  that  the  state  of  war  strictly  admits  a  nation 
to  seize  the  property  of  its  enemies,  found  within  its  own  limits,  or  taken 
in  war,  and  in  whatever  form  it  exists — whether  in  action  or  posses- 
sion." 

In  confirmation  of  this,  he  quotes  Bynkershoek,  1.  1,  c.  7,  who  is  clear 
and  explicit  on  the  subject.  See  papers  relative  to  Great  Britain,  pub- 
lished by  order  of  Congress,  p.  29.  This  doctrine  is  the  universal  law 
of  nations. 

"  As  the  towns  and  lands  taken  from  the  enemy,  are  called  conquests, 
all  movable  things  constitute  the  booty.  The  booty  belongs  to  the  sove- 
reign."— (Vattel,  book  iii,  ch.  9.) 

In  the  interpretation  of  treaties  where  there  are  two  constructions,  the 
one  favorable,  the  other  odious,  that  which  is  odious  is  always  to  be  re- 
ject#i :  and  what  can  be  more  odious  than  to  construe  this  article  of 
the  treaty,  so  as  to  violate  faith  toward  the  wretched  blacks,  and  render 
them  back  to  the  whips  and  scourges  of  slavery.?  At  any  rate,  this 
point  of  the  business  the  British  ministiy  will  not  yield,  as  the  first  in- 
fraction of  the  treaty. 

Then  came  the  detention  of  the  western  posts,  which  our  minister 
alledged  to  be  a  breach  of  the  treaty,  anterior  to  any  violation  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States.  Here  was  introduced  the  correspondence 
between  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr.  Hammond,  and  Mr.  Jefferson's  reason- 
ing on  the  subject.  To  this  the  British  minister  answered,  by  referring 
to  dates  of  transactions. 

The  provisional  articles  between  Great  Britain  and  America  were 
signed  November  30,  1782,  at  Paris ;  and  notice  of  this  was  officially 
received  by  Sir  Guy  Carleton,  April  5,  1783.  But  the  definitive  treaty 
was  not  signed  till  September  3,  1783,  and  the  ratifications  were  not 
finally  exchanged  till  some  time  in  1784,  though  I  do  not  know  the  day 
and  the  month. 

A  treaty  is  binding  on  a  nation  from  the  moment  of  signature  ;  but 
its  ultimate  validity  depends  on  its  passing  through  all  the  usual  forms. 
According  to  the  modern  practice,  the  exchange  of  ratifications  puts 
the  seal  to  the  validity  of  a  treaty,  and  gives  it  an  effect  from  the  time 
of  signature. 

The  British  ministry  state,  that  ex  gratia^  or  as  a  matter  of  conven- 
ience to  the  nation,  orders  were  given  to  Sir  Guy  Carleton  to  evacuate 
New  York,  immediately  on  signing  the  provisional  articles  in  1782. 
But  they  alledge  they  were  not  bound  to  do  this,  until  they  had  been 
notified  of  the  ratification  of  those  articles  by  Congress,  which  could 
not  have  been  till  the  middle  of  the  year  1784. 

The  demand  made  by  the  Baron  Steuben,  by  order  of  General  Wash- 
ington, of  the  surrender  of  the  western  posts,  and  the  first  demand 
made,  was  by  his  letter  to  General  Haldimand,  dated  August  2,  1783. 
At  this  time  the  British  minister  could  scarcely  have  heard  whether 
Congress  had  agreed  to  the  treaty  or  not ;  much  less  could  any  orders 
Imve  been  sent  to  them  from  Canada  for  withdrawing  the  troops  from 
the  garrison. 

24 


186  VINDICATION    OF    THE    TREATY 

Admitting  this  fact,  that  the  British  ministry  were  not  bound  by  treaty 
to  give  orders  for  the  troops  to  withdraw,  until  the  treaty  had  gone 
through  its  usual  forms,  then  the  detention  of  the  posts  till  long  after 
they  had  been  demanded  by  Baron  Steuben,  and  perhaps  as  late  as  the 
demand  of  Colonel  Hull  in  July,  1784,  w£is  justifiable  and  authorized 
by  the  practice  of  nations. 

But  long  before  this,  Congress  had  declared  the  carrying  away  of 
the  negroes  an  infraction  of  the  treaty ;  and  in  May,  1793,  had  sent 
orders  to  our  foreign  ministers  to  remonstrate  against  this  measure  and 
demand  reparation. 

The  state  of  New  York,  so  early  as  March  17,  1783,  passed  an  act 
authorizing  any  citizen  to  bring  actions  of  trespass  against  any  person 
who  had  occupied  or  injured  his  estate,  real  or  personal,  within  the 
power  of  the  enemy.  This  was  an  express  violation  of  the  6th  article 
of  the  treaty,  which  declares  that  no  person  shall  suffer  any  loss  or 
damage,  or  any  prosecution,  on  account  of  the  part  he  had  taken  du- 
ring the  war.  And  Virginia,  in  December,  1783,  passed  an  act,  sus- 
pending executions  on  certain  judgments,  which  materially  affected 
British  creditors.  South  Carolina  in  March,  1784,  followed,  and  pass- 
ed an  act  suspending  all  actions,  both  British  and  American,  for  nine' 
months. 

These  legal  impediments  to  the  recovery  of  old  British  debts,  deter- 
mined the  ministry  not  to  surrender  the  posts,  but  to  hold  them  as  a 
security  for  these  debts.  And  whatever  clamor  we  may  raise  about 
this  business,  we  may  be  assured  that  the  western  posts  will  never  be 
delivered  peaceably,  until  the  payment  of  those  debts  has  been  amply 
secured. 

I  have  been  thus  full  in  explaining  what  is  meant  by  the  merits  of 
complaints,  in  the  preamble  of  the  treaty,  to  show,  that  our  minister 
was  justifiable  in  passing  over  the  discussion  of  a  point  of  extreme 
difficulty — a  point  which  would  have  wasted  time,  and  embarrassed, 
perhaps  defeated,  the  negotiation.  The  question  of  the  first  infraction 
of  the  treaty  of  peace  had  been  ably  discussed  before  ;  and  at  the  close 
of  the  controversy,  the  parties  were  as  remote  from  the  probability  of 
agreement  as  when  they  began. 

Neither  party  would  yield  the  point  to  his  antagonist.  The  British 
ministry,  it  is  evidently  known,  are  determined  never  to  admit  the  car- 
rying away  the  negroes  to  be  an  infraction  of  the  treaty,  and  they  are 
equally  determined  not  to  surrender  the  western  posts  without  a  guar- 
anty for  the  payment  of  old  debts. 

In  this  situation,  was  it  not  prudent  and  wise  to  pass  over  the  first 
subjects  of  crimination,  and  proceed  to  an  amicable  adjustment  of  all 
differences,  if  it  could  be  done,  without  attempting  to  decide  who  first 
infringed  the  treaty  ?  I  am  persuaded  that  every  candid  man  who 
reads  this  explanation  of  the  business,  will  be  fully  satisfied  with  the 
conduct  of  our  envoy. 

Note. — I  generally  use  the  word  envoy  or  minister,  in  the  singular, 
as  referring  to  Mr.  Jay,  the  principal  in  the  negotiation.  But  it  is  pro- 
per to  observe,  once  for  all,  that  Mr.  Jay,  by  order,  communicated  his 
instructions  to  Mr.  Pinckney,  consulted  him  on  every  point,  and  that 
the  treaty  and  every  article  of  it  had  the  approbation  of  that  gentleman. 

CUETIUS. 


WITH   GREAT    BRITAIN    IN    1795.  187 

^"^    "  '  ■"  No.  III. 

The  first  article  of  the  treaty  contains  words,  of  course,  which  de- 
serve no  notice. 

_^rt.  2. — The  first  objection  made  to  this  article  is  the  inexplicitness 
of  it.  It  is  said  that  the  article  should  have  defined  from  what  places 
his  majesty  was  to  withdraw  his  troops. 

The  answer  to  this  objection  is,  that  there  is  not  any  dispute  about 
the  boundary  line  of  the  United  States,  except  at  the  northeast  extrem- 
ity, on  St.  Croix  River.  The  posts  which  we  claim,  are  acknowledged 
to  be  in  the  United  States.  It  is  possible,  that  British  officers  at  some 
of  those  places,  as  a  pretext  for  some  purposes  of  their  own,  may  have 
pretended  that  they  were  on  their  own  ground  ;  but  1  never  heard  it 
suggested  that  the  ministry  dispute  the  boundary  line  at  or  near  any  of 
the  garrisoned  places. 

The  time  assigned  for  the  evacuation  is  said  to  be  too  distant.  But 
if  we  calculate,  we  shall  find  no  ground  for  this  objection.  There  was 
required  time  to  exchange  ratifications,  and  then  for  orders  to  be  dis- 
patched from  England  to  the  furthest  post  westward.  If  we  allow  a 
reasonable  time  for  these  transactions,  it  will  require  the  whole  period 
assigned  by  the  treaty. 

The  jurisdiction  of  a  military  post  will  doubtless  be  considered,  the 
reach  of  a  cannon  shot,  or  a  league. 

"  Lastly,"  says  Decius,  "  as  the  treaty  of  peace  gave  us  these  posts, 
what  great  benefit  is  obtained  by  this  article  ?  Who  would  regard  the 
second  promise  of  a  man,  who  had  already,  without  an  excuse,  viola- 
ted the  first .?" 

But  Decius  will  please  to  remember,  that  there  are  two  sides  to  a 
question — the  legal  impediments  to  a  collection  of  old  debts  were  an 
excuse  for  the  detention  of  the  posts  which  they  deemed  sufficient.  If 
we  comply  with  the  sixth  article.  Great  Britain  will  consequently  com- 
ply with  the  second. 

Art.  3. — Even  this  article  of  the  treaty,  which  breaks  down  the 
barriers  which  have  hitherto  obstructed  our  trade  to  Canada,  and  opens 
a  general  intercourse  upon  most  liberal  principles,  has  not  escaped  crit- 
icism and  censure.  Decius  says,  the  advantages  in  this  article  are  on 
the  side  of  Great  Britain ;  and  the  reason  assigned  is,  that  the  extent 
of  the  United  States  is  greater  than  that  of  the  British  territories.  Now 
this  is  the  very  reason  why  the  advantages  of  this  article  are  in  favor  of 
the  United  States. 

What  is  the  present  state  of  trade  between  Canada  and  the  United 
States  ?  and  what  will  its  situation  be  under  the  treaty  ?  This  is  a  fair 
way  of  determining  the  goodness  of  the  treaty. 

In  the  present  state  of  things,  almost  all  trade  is  prohibited  on  the 
part  of  Canada.  Not  a  skin  in  the  fur  trade  can  be  brought  into  the 
United  States  except  by  stealth.  This  prohibition  makes  the  little  trade 
in  peltry,  now  actually  carried  on,  very  hazardous,  and  raises  the  arti- 
cle to  a  very  high  price.  The  peltry,  it  must  be  admitted,  is  almost  all 
collected  within  the  British  territories  ;  the  British  have  command  of  it 
by  right ;  and  the  removal  of  those  garrisons  to  the  other  side  of  the 
lakes,  without  a  removal  of  the  prohibition  on  the  peltry  trade,  would 


188  VINDICATION    OF   THE    TREATY 

not  have  been  of  much  advantage  to  the  United  States.  We  have  then 
every  thing  to  gain  by  a  free  intercourse — the  British,  every  thing  to 
lose,  so  far  as  regards  Uiat  trade, 

Decius  says,  "  the  fur  trade  will  probably  fall  altogether  in  the  hands 
of  British  traders."  This  is  a  most  extraordinary  supposition.  The 
truth  is,  the  peltry  trade  now  is  all  in  their  hands  ;  what  we  want  is  to 
get  that  out.  of  their  hands.  That  is,  we  want  to  obtain  a  share  of  that 
trade  on  equal  terms  with  British  subjects.  This  we  have  obtained  by 
the  article  under  consideration.  What  right,  what  pretense  have  we 
to  a  monopoly  of  that  trade  .''  Do  we  expect  that  Great  Britain  would 
permit  us,  as  Decius  says,  "  to  secure  to  ourselves  the  whole  fur  trade .?" 
^^  To  demand  such  a  privilege  on  our  part  would  be  extravagant  and 
'^       ridiculous. 

The  trade  by  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  is  placed  on  a  fair  and 
liberal  footing.  Both  parties  are  free  to  use  all  the  rivers  and  lakes  for 
the  purpose  of  inland  navigation,  subject  only  to  the  common  tolls  and 
ferriages.  The  exception  of  the  limits  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
is  of  no  importance  at  present  to  the  United  States  ;  and  the  exception 
was  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  exclusive  rights  of  that  company. 

Decius  supposes  there  is  a  manifest  inequality  in  permitting  British 
traders  to  use  all  our  ports  and  rivers,  and  in  restricting  the  Americans 
from  the  same  use  of  the  ports  of  the  British  territories,  and  the  rivers 
between  the  mouths  thereof  and  the  highest  ports  of  entry.  But  De- 
cius will  please  to  recollect,  that  this  privilege  enjoyed  by  British  sub- 
jects, and  the  restriction  of  American  subjects,  are  not  created  by  the 
present  treaty.  In  this  respect  the  parties  are  as  they  were  before. 
American  vessels  have  never  been  permitted  to  cari-y  on  the  coasting 
trade  of  the  British  possessions  in  America  ;  and  therefore  we  suffer 
no  new  abridgment  of  business  by  this  article.  On  the  other  hand, 
British  vessels  are  now  admitted  into  all  our  harbors,  and  to  the  highest 
port  of  entry  for  foreign  vessels,  so  that  this  article  gives  no  new  priv- 
ilege to  such  vessels.  But  we  have  obtained  by  the  treaty  afree  inland 
trade  with  Canada.  We  can  navigate  all  the  rivers  and  lakes — we  can 
go  down  the  St.  Lawrence  to  Quebec.  Articles  are  to  be  carried  from 
the  United  States  to  Canada,  and  vice  versa,  subject  to  the  lowest  duties 
ever  paid  on  these  articles  ;  and  peltry  pays  no  duty  at  all. 

This  free  intercourse  will  be  highly  advantageous  to  our  citizens  on 
the  frontiers.  They  will  be  deeply  concerned  in  the  fur  trade,  and  we 
shall  obtain  furs  much  lower  than  formerly.  At  the  same  time  the  in- 
habitants on  our  frontiere  will  find  a  market  at  Montreal  or  Quebec,  and 
bring  back  in  return  such  heavy  articles  as  will  come  cheaper,  through 
the  St.  Lawrence  and  the  lakes,  than  through  the  Atlantic  ports. 

This  trade  is  extremely  wanted  by  our  frontier  settlements,  which  are 
every  day  increasing.  Their  distance  from  the  Atlantic  lays  them  under 
heavy  disadvantages,  which  the  treaty  before  us  alleviates  as  much  as 
possible,  by  taking  ofi'all  restrictions  on  inland  trade.  And  just  in  pro- 
portion to  the  number  of  people  in  the  United  States,  who  are  to  carry 
on  and  partake  of  that  free  trade,  will  be  the  benefits  of  this  article  of 
the  treaty. 

It  should  be  considered  further,  that  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
are  taking  up  large  tracts  of  land  in  Canada,  and  emigrating  to  that 


WITH   GREAT   BRITAIN    IN    1795.  189' 

province.  This  business  is  encouraged  by  the  British  government. 
But  while  the  people  who  settle  in  Canada,  for  the  purposes  of  trade  or 
agriculture,  become  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  they  retain  their  attach-  ^ 

ment  to  the  United  States ;  and  from  this  circumstance  important  and         ^'SSJf. 
beneficial  consequences  may  hereafter  be  expected. 

Arts.  4  and  5. — These  articles  have  not  been  the  subjects  of  much 
censure  ;  perhaps  the  mode  prescribed  for  ascertaining  doubtful  points, 
relative  to  the  laoundary  line  of  the  United  States,  is  as  eligible  as  we 
could  wish. 

Art.  6. — This  is  a  most  important  article.  It  involves  in  it  the  prima- 
ry and  principal  causes  of  all  the  differences  now  existing  between  the 
two  countries.  «  ^^ 

Before  the  war,  most  of  the  trade  of  Virginia,  and  a  great  portion  of  ^MT 
that  of  the  states  to  the  southward,  was  carried  on  by  foreigners.  I  " 
am  well  assured  that  it  was  esteemed  in  Virginia,  disreputable  for  plan- 
ters and  their  sons  to  engage  in  trade.  This  prejudice,  which  was,  like 
a  thousand  follies  adopted  by  Americans,  introduced  from  Europe,  and 
a  remnant  of  the  aristocracy  of  the  feudal  system,  operated  powerfully 
to  keep  trade  in  the  hands  of  foreigners. 

The  British  merchants  availed  themselves  of  the  prejudice.  They 
were  the  agents  or  factors  for  the  planters,  and  gave  extensive  credit. 
The  confidence  created  by  this  friendly  intercourse,  together  with  the 
prodigal  habits  of  many  planters,  extended  this  credit  to  a  very  large 
amount. 

The  war  necessarily  suspended  the  payment  of  these  debts.  The 
treaty  of  peace  provided  that  no  lawful  impediments  should  be  interpos- 
ed to  prevent  the  recovery  of  those  debts.  The  carrying  away  of  the 
negroes  by  the  British,  when  they  left  New  York,  exasperated  the 
southern  states ;  they  considered  it  as  an  infraction  of  the  treaty,  and  as 
such,  an  excuse  for  violating  it  on  their  part.  They  passed  laws  which 
were  impediments  to  the  recovery  of  old  debts.  The  British  ministry, 
on  their  part,  detained  the  western  posts,  as  security  for  those  debts, 
and  damages  sustained  by  the  British  merchants,  in  consequence  of  those 
legal  impediments.  Here  the  parties  are  at  issue — here  are  difl!erences 
between  the  two  nations  which  can  be  settled  only  by  the  sword  or  am- 
icable adjustment. 

This  is  precisely  the  situation  of  the  parties.  Neither  party  will  yield 
the  point  of  first  infraction ;  and  paper  correspondence,  to  prove  the 
point,  has  been  exhausted,  without  giving  any  satisfaction  to  either. 
The  issue  then  is,  the  alternative  of  war  or  accommodation.  But  if  we 
enter  into  a  war,  will  this  settle  the  points  in  dispute  ?  Not  at  all.  A 
ten  years'  war,  and  a  waste  of  half  the  blood  and  treasure  of  the  United 
States,  would  leave  the  controversy  just  where  it  now  is — to  be  settled 
by  negotiation.  It  is  no  answer  to  these  remarks,  to  make  outcries 
about  British  injustice.  Admitting  this  in  the  fullest  extent,  that  injus- 
tice is  to  be  restrained  only  by  the  sword,  or  amicable  agreement — we 
have  our  choice. 

Is  it  not  prudent  and  wise  to  make  an  effort  to  adjust  all  differences  by 
a  reference  to  equitable  principles  ?  What  better  mode  could  be  devised 
to  settle  diflferences  so  numerous,  so  complicated,  as  those  which  exist 
between  the  two  countries,  than  by  commissioners  fairly  and  impartial- 


190  VINDICATION    OF    THE    TREATY 

ly  appointed  ?  This  is  the  mode  which  has  been  practiced  for  centu- 
ries, in  like  cases.  In  looking  into  collections  of  treaties,  I  find  the  same 
mode  prescribed  in  all  cases  of  difficult  disputes  between  nations ;  and 
the  universal  practice  of  resorting  to  this  mode,  is  a  proof  that  none 
better  has  yet  been  devised. 

But  it  is  said,  "  this  mode  of  adjusting  sums  due  to  British  creditors, 
is  unjust  toward  those  states  which  have  interposed  no  lawful  impedi- 
ments in  the  way  of  recovering  such  debts  ;  as  they  must  bear  a  part  of 
the  burden,  and  thus  suffer  for  the  delinquency  of  others." 

This  objection  is  susceptible  of  a  very  satisfactory  answer.  Our  ca- 
pacity, as  a  nation,  arises  from  the  union  of  the  states  under  the  consti- 
tution. All  our  intercourse  with  foreign  nations  is  conducted  by  the 
United  States,  in  that  national  capacity.  Foreign  nations  can  not  nego- 
tiate with  any  of  our  individual  states  ;  and  the  states  are  expressly  pro- 
hibited, by  our  constitution,  from  entering  into  any  treaty,  compact,  or 
agreement,  with  any  foreign  power. 

The  moment  our  union  took  place,  the  United  States  became,  to  a 
certain  degree,  responsible  for  acts  done  by  states  or  individuals  toward 
foreign  nations.  This  responsibility  results  from  the  national  capacity 
derived  from  the  union. 

Whatever  hardships  this  may  impose  on  particular  states,  it  is  a  ne- 
cessary consequence  of  the  character  we  have  assumed  among  the  pow- 
ers of  the  earth  ;  and  indeed  it  is  much  more  than  counterbalanced  by 
the  protection  and  security  derived  from  the  same  national  capacity. 

CURTIUS. 

No.  IV. 

Art.  7. — This  article  is  said  to  be  wholly  exceptionable,  because  it 
places  at  too  great  a  distance,  compensation  to  which  our  citizens  are 
entitled,  for  the  most  atrocious  acts  of  piracy. 

I  will  admit  what  my  antagonists  please  to  alledge  against  the  injuri- 
ous treatment  of  our  vessels  at  sea  by  British  privateers.  I  know  that 
the  right  which  the  law  of  nations  gives  to  powers  at  war,  of  stopping 
and  examining  neutral  vessels,  and  seizing  them  when  they  have  con- 
traband goods  on  board,  has  been  abused,  and  that  great  injuries  and 
insolence  have  been  suffered  by  our  seamen ;  and  great  losses  have 
been  incurred  by  our  merchants  by  illegal  detention  and  condemnation. 
My  own  feelings  are  keenly  alive  to  such  abuses,  and  I  wish  we  had 
the  means  of  vindicating  our  rights  in  a  more  ample  manner. 

But  let  me  observe,  that  these  injuries  do  not  excite  greater  resent- 
ment in  the  breasts  of  Americans,  than  laws  of  our  states,  suspending 
the  recovery  of  old  debts,  or  making  lands,  goods  and  depreciated  paper 
currency,  a  legal  tender  for  these  debts,  awakened  in  the  breasts  of  the 
British  nation.  As  to  every  thing  of  this  nature,  anger,  resentment  and 
disgust  are  reciprocal :  and  ill  usage  alledged  on  one  part,  is  retorted 
with  ill  usage  in  some  other  particular  on  the  other  part.  There  is  no 
common  tribunal  to  decide  this  question.  Who  has  been  guilty  of  the 
greatest  outrage  on  faith  and  honesty  ?  We  are  satisfied  that  the 
charge  belongs  to  Great  Britain — they  are  as  confident  the  blame  is  on 
our  side.  It  is  idle  to  waste  time  in  criminating  each  other.  Our  inter- 
est and  happiness,  and  those  of  Great  Britain,  demand  an  amicable 
accommodatioD,  and  to  that  point  all  our  efforts  should  be  directed. 


WITH    GREAT    BHITAIN    IN    1795.  191 

The  time  which  will  be  required  to  examine  the  claims  of  American 
merchants  for  losses,  is  certainly  to  be  regretted.  But  how  can  this 
delay  be  prevented  ? 

If  we  admit  the  right  of  powers  at  war  to  stop  neutral  vessels  and 
examine  them,  do  we  not  admit  the  right  of  ascertaining  whether  such 
vessels  have  contraband  property  on  board  or  not  ?  How  shall  this 
point  be  settled,  where  suspicion  occurs  ?  The  papers  of  neutral  ves- 
sels are  not  always  to  be  relied  on.  We  all  know  that  subjects  of  na- 
tions at  war,  procure  neutral  vessels  and  neutral  names  to  cover  prop- 
erty of  their  own.  This  happens  every  day.  We  all  know  that  con- 
traband goods  are  often  concealed  in  bales  or  casks  of  goods  not  con- 
traband. We  all  know  that  masters,  supercargoes  and  seamen,  will 
evade  direct  answers,  equivocate,  and  sometimes  men  are  abandoned 
enough  to  perjure  themselves  in  a  court,  to  save  property  of  their  own 
or  their  friends. 

What  says  the  law  of  nations  on  this  subject  ?  Vattel,  book  iii,  ch.  7, 
lays  it  down  with  great  precision.  "  Without  searching  neutral  ships  at 
sea,  the  commerce  of  contraband  goods  can  not  be  prevented.  There 
is  then  a  right  of  searching.  At  present  a  neutral  ship  refusing  to  be 
searched,  would  from  that  proceeding  alone  be  condemned  as  lawful 
prize.  But  to  avoid  inconveniences,  violence,  and  every  other  irregu- 
larity, the  manner  of  the  search  is  settled  in  the  treaties  of  navigation 
and  commerce.  According  to  the  present  custom,  credit  is  to  be  given 
to  certificates  and  bills  of  lading,  produced  by  the  master  of  the  ship, 
unless  any  fraud  appear  in  them,  or  there  be  very  good  reason  to  sus- 
pect their  validity.'''' 

The  mode  of  searching  neutral  vessels  is  regulated  by  our  treaties 
with  the  States  General,  with  Sweden  and  France,  in  which  it  is  stipu- 
lated that  credit  shall  be  given  to  the  ship's  papers.  But  we  have  had 
no  such  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  and  the  treatment  of  our  vessels  de- 
pends on  the  law  of  nations,  or  the  licentious  will  of  the  masters  of  pri- 
vateers. Wherever  there  is  suspicion  of  fraud  in  the  papers,  the  ves- 
sels may  be  carried  into  port  for  examination  and  trial ;  and  it  is  prob- 
able, this  license  has  been  carried  to  a  most  unwarrantable  length,  du- 
ring the  present  war.  The  general  expression,  cause  of  suspicion, 
gives  an  almost  unbounded  latitude  to  those  unprincipled  men,  who  are 
usually  engaged  in  the  detestable  business  of  privateering. 

Such  is  the  situation  of  our  trade,  in  the  present  unhappy  war.  But 
making  every  allowance  for  ill  usage,  it  must  be  admitted  that  great 
numbers  of  American  vessels  have,  according  to  the  laws  of  nations, 
been  justly  seized,  and  carried  into  port  for  trial.  When  this  is  the 
case,  what  mode  of  process  must  be  had  to  determine  what  property  is 
liable  to  confiscation,  and  what  is  not  ? 

Our  existing  treaties  with  other  nations  admit  the  right  of  trial  in  the 
admiralty  courts  of  the  nation  capturing  the  neutral  vessels ;  and  in 
these  treaties,  there  are  stipulations  that  bulk  shall  not  be  broke,  until 
the  cargo  has  been  landed  in  presence  of  proper  officers,  and  no  part 
of  the  cargo  sold,  till  legal  process  shall  have  been  had,  and  sentence 
pronounced  against  the  goods  liable  to  condemnation. 

Must  not  the  same  process  be  had  in  the  British  courts,  though  we 
have  had  no  treaty  with  the  nation  ?  Where  is  the  ground  for  main- 
taining a  different  doctrine .'' 


192  VINDICATION    OF    THE    TREATY 

We  must  then  admit  the  principle,  that  American  vessels  seized  and 
carried  into  port,  with  prohibited  goods  on  board,  or  on  suspicion  of 
fraudulent  papers,  are  subject  to  the  usual  legal  process  of  British  courts 
of  admiralty.  However  hard  this  may  appear,  the  effect  flows  directly 
from  the  state  of  war  and  the  law  of  nations. 

If  we  admit  this  principle,  we  admit  all  its  consequences.  If  our 
vessels  are  liable  to  legal  process,  it  is  necessary  that  all  the  documents 
relative  to  the  question  of  legal  capture  or  not,  should  be  produced  and 
examined.  And  when  we  consider  the  distance  from  which  many  of 
these  documents  are  to  be  procured,  and  the  numerous  cases  that  have 
arisen,  who  can  say  that  final  decisions  can  be  had  on  the  American 
claims  in  a  moment  ?  And  in  cases  which  involve  equitable  considera- 
tions, not  proper  for  the  decision  of  courts  of  law,  what  mode  could  be 
devised,  more  eligible  for  the  claimants,  than  that  of  commissioners .'' 
Is  the  term  of  eighteen  months  too  long  for  receiving  claims  ?  It  ap- 
pears to  me  the  time  is  not  unreasonably  long ;  and  even  the  length  of 
the  time  is  favorable  for  the  claimants. 

It  is  said  that  the  British  government  ought  to  advance  a  sum  on  ac- 
count, to  be  distributed  among  the  sufferers.  This  suggestion  seems  to 
be  grounded  on  an  idea  that  has  prevailed,  that  such  a  sum  has  been 
advanced  by  Great  Britain  to  Denmark  and  Sweden — an  opinion 
which,  I  have  authority  to  say,  is  not  well  founded. 

But  to  this  measure  there  are  insurmountable  objections.  The  im- 
practicability of  doing  even  partial  justice,  before  it  is  ascertained  who 
are  the  objects  of  it,  is  merely  chimerical. 

Many  of  my  countrymen  are  great  sufferers,  and  I  trust  their  just 
claims  will  be  supported,  and  their  just  damages  paid.  But  a  summary 
trial  might  do  great  injustice — the  innocent  might  suffer,  and  the  guilty 
obtain  reparation. 

On  the  whole,  the  time  and  mode  appear  as  eligible  as  justice  and 
the  nature  of  the  cases  will  admit.  With  respect  to  the  stipulation  in 
the  last  clause  of  the  seventh  article,  that  engages  payment  for  certain 
vessels  taken  by  privateers  within  our  jurisdiction  or  by  vessels  armed 
in  our  ports,  I  trust  no  man,  who  has  a  regard  for  honesty  or  national 
character,  will  ever  object  to  it.  I  am  one  of  those  American  citizens, 
that  hold  it  as  a  duty  for  us  to  preserve  a  strict  neutrality  in  the  pres- 
ent wax,  and  honorable  in  our  government  to  make  indemnification  for 
every  illegal  proceeding  of  the  nation  and  of  individuals,  toward 
foreign  nations.  Let  him  who  demands  justice,  do  justice  himself. 
The  amount  of  the  sums  to  be  paid,  does  not  vary  the  principle,  nor 
should  it  vary  our  conduct  as  a  nation.  I  hope  and  trust  the  character 
of  the  United  States  will  never  be  stained  with  a  violation  of  faith  and 
justice,  even  toward  the  corsairs  of  Barbary.  Self-defense  only  will 
authorize  any  nation  in  arresting  or  withholding  the  property  of  indi- 
viduals, even  of  an  enemy  nation.  To  withhold  or  to  authorize  the 
withholding  of  private  property,  contrary  to  law,  is  to  degrade  our  na- 
tion to  the  rank  of  Algerines. 

Postscript  to  No.  IV. — To  convince  the  public  more  fully  of  the 
little  ground  for  objection,  on  account  of  delays  in  admiralty  courts, 
adjusting  differences  between  nations,  I  will  make  several  extracts 
from  the  correspondence  between  our  minister  at  Paris,  and  the  French 


WITH   GREAT   BRITAIN    IN    1795.  153 

minister  for  foreign  affairs.  This  correspondence  was  published  in 
January,  1794,  by  order  of  Congress,  It  relates  to  the  captures  of 
our  vessels  by  French  privateers,  under  the  decrees  of  the  Convention 
of  May  9,  and  July  27,  1793,  in  express  violation  of  our  treaty  with 
France. 

Letter  from  Mr.  Morris^  October  12,  1793. 

[translation.] 

Paris,  October  12,  1793. 

The  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  the 
Republic  of  France,  to  M.  Deforgues,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

Sir — I  have  the  honor  to  send  you  herein  inclosed,  the  copy  of  a  let- 
ter which  has  been  addressed  to  me  by  Citizen  Postic,  a  lawyer  resi- 
ding at  Morlaix.  It  appears  that  in  the  proceedings  of  which  he  has 
given  an  account,  there  are  extraordinary  irregularities ;  and  I  think  it 
my  duty  to  inform  you  of  them,  as  on  the  justice  of  tribunals  often  de- 
pends the  salvation,  and  always  the  prosperity  of  a  state. 

I  request  of  you  at  the  same  time,  sir,  to  permit  me  to  make  two 
general  observations  on  the  whole  of  this  business ;  one  of  which  ap- 
plies to  the  organization,  and  the  other  to  the  proceedings,  of  the  com- 
mercial tribunals.  The  referring  of  questions  on  sea  prizes  to  these 
tribunals,  appears  to  me  dangerous,  since  they  involve  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  treaties,  and  the  application  of  the  law  of  nations ;  conse- 
quently of  peace  and  of  war.  Now  we  may  be  permitted  to  entertain 
some  doubt  as  to  the  knowledge  of  the  judges,  and  we  ought  besides  to 
fear,  lest  they  may  be  interested,  as  owners  of  privateers,  in  the  ques- 
tions which  are  submitted  to  them. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  organization  of  the  tribunals,  it  appears  to 
me  essential,  sir,  that  in  their  proceedings  they  should  receive  all  the 
claims  which  may  be  made  to  them  ;  that  they  should  even  invite  with- 
out waiting  for  the  authority  of  the  persons  interested,  who  are  often  at 
the  distance  of  one  thousand  leagues.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  tribu- 
nals within  whose  cognizance  are  the  questions  of  prize,  is  in  rem. 
They  take  possession  of  the  things,  and  by  that  means  render  them- 
selves responsible  for  it.  Now  as  the  tribunal,  which  is  the  depository 
of  the  thing,  ought  not  to  dispossess  themselves  of  it,  without  a  formal 
authoritative  act  of  the  true  proprietor,  it  is  their  duty  not  only  to  ad- 
mit, but  also  to  seek  proofs,  which  may  establish  to  whom  the  property 
truly  belongs.  This  is  a  double  duty  toward  the  neutral  proprietor, 
and  toward  their  own  nation  ;  for  every  government  which  permits  its 
citizens  to  fit  out  privateers,  arms  with  the  destructive  sword  of  war, 
hands  which  are  interested  to  extend  its  ravages,  and  renders  itself  re- 
sponsible for  the  abuses  which  result  from  so  dangerous  a  delegation  of 
sovereignty.  For  the  purpose  of  repossessing  them,  the  admiralty  tri- 
bunals have  been  established  throughout  the  different  nations  of  Europe. 
In  these  tribunals,  the  government  furnishes  the  means  of  information, 
by  the  facility  with  which  it  admits  therein  every  species  of  claim.  It 
preserves,  by  appeals,  the  right  of  deciding,  in  the  last  resort,  on  the 
contests  which  shall  therein  arise ;  and  it  gives  the  necessary  time  to 

25 


194  VINDICATION    OF    THE    TREATY 

enlighten  its  conscience  on  thorny  questions,  before  the  pronouncing  of 
a  sentence,  which  might  extend  or  prolong  the  horrors  of  wai". 

These,  sir,  are  the  questions  which  experience  has  dictated  to  me. 
They  daily  make  on  me  a  more  lively  impression,  on  account  of  the 
claims  addressed  to  me  by  my  countrymen,  of  which  I  have  communi- 
cated to  you  a  very  small  part.  I  always  send  to  the  tribunals  the  in- 
jured persons,  by  giving  them  the  most  positive  assurances  that  they 
will  there  obtain  complete  and  prompt  justice. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c. 

Gotrv.  MoRais. 

Extract  from  the  French  Minister'^s  answer  to  Mr.  Morris,  dated 
Paris,  October  14,  1793. 

"  These  observations,  sir,  which  you  are  too  just  not  to  appreciate, 
apply  to  the  greater  part  of  the  claims,  which  you  have  addressed  to 
me  for  some  time.  I  have  done,  with  respect  to  several  of  them,  all 
that  depended  on  me,  in  order  to  obtain  in  favor  of  your  countrymen, 
an  exception  of  the  general  measures,  adopted  with  regard  to  neutral 
nations.  I  have  used  among  others,  all  the  means  with  which  your  let- 
ters furnished  me,  to  have  restored  the  ship  Laurens ;  but  I  have  met 
with  insurmountable  obstacles  in  the  established  laws,  and  in  the  opin- 
ion of  the  commercial  tribunal  at  Havre.  The  tribunal  has  neglected 
nothing  to  render  justice  to  the  owners  of  this  vessel.  It  has  consented 
among  other  things,  to  have  translated  three  hundred  and  sixty-one  let- 
ters, merely  to  prove  in  the  most  authentic  manner,  the  property  of  the 
cargo.  The  interested  have,  besides,  avowed  themselves  that  they  had 
neglected  an  essential  formality  required  by  our  laws. 

"  We  hope  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  will  attribute  to 
their  true  cause,  the  abuses  of  which  you  complain,  as  well  as  other 
violations  of  which  our  cruisers  may  render  themselves  guilty,  in  the 
course  of  the  present  war.  It  must  perceive  how  difficult  it  is  to  con- 
tain within  just  limits,  the  indignation  of  our  marines,  and  in  general  of 
all  the  French  patriots,  against  a  people  who  speak  the  same  language, 
and  have  the  same  habits,  as  the  free  Americans.  The  difficulty  of 
distinguishing  our  allies  from  our  enemies,  has  often  been  the  cause  of 
offenses  committed  on  board  your  vessels ;  all  that  the  administration 
could  do,  is  to  order  indemnification  to  those  who  have  suffered,  and  to 
punish  the  guilty." 

Let  any  candid  man  view  the  whole  of  the  transactions  of  England 
and  France,  and  say  whether,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  vessels 
captured,  the  delays  and  difficulties  have  been  greater  in  England  than 
in  France. 

N.  B.  Mr.  Jefferson's  letter  on  the  right  of  nations  at  war,  to  seize 
enemy's  property  in  neutral  bottoms,  will  fall  more  properly  under  the 
eighth  number  of  this  discussion.  Cuetius. 

No.  V. 

Art.  8. — This  article  solely  regards  the  mode  of  defraying  the  ex- 
penses of  the  commissioners,  and  supplying  vacancies.  No  objection 
appears  against  it.  iiii^i  <|r  ^ 


L 


WITH   GREAT    BRITAIN   IN    1795.  195 

Art.  9. — This  article  gives  the  present  holders  of  lands  in  the  two 
countries  the  right  of  disposing  of  them,  &c.  without  being  considered 
as  aliens. 

In  the  first  abstract  of  the  treaty  which  was  published,  this  article 
was  erroneously  stated,  as  extending  to  give  the  rights  of  citizens  to 
any  and  all  British  subjects  purchasing  lands  hereafter  in  the  United 
States.  The  truth  is,  the  article  extends  only  to  persons  holding  lands 
at  the  time  the  treaty  was  signed,  and  some  provision  of  this  kind  was 
necessary. 

To  understand  this  article,  it  must  be  remembered,  that  the  United 
States  were  settled  from  the  British  dominions,  and  till  lately  remained 
a  part  of  the  nation.  Some  persons  in  the  United  States  now  hold 
lands  in  England,  which  they  inherit  from  branches  of  their  families 
which  are  extinct  in  that  country.  Great  numbers  in  the  British  do- 
minions hold  lands  which  they  formerly  enjoyed  as  inhabitants  of  the 
colonies,  and  which  were  not  confiscated.  Others  have  been  compelled 
to  take  lands  in  payment  of  debts. 

The  circumstances  of  these  two  countries  differ  from  those  of  all 
other  countries.  They  were  formerly  one  country^  and  linked  together 
by  a  variety  of  individual  interests.  These  private  interests  have  been 
mostly  created  under  one  common  government.  They  originated  when 
the  two  countries  were  one  in  empire,  and  without  any  fault  on  the  part 
of  the  persons  interested.  Was  it  not  reasonable  and  just,  that  interests 
thus  created  should  be  secured  by  the  provisions  of  a  treaty  which  was 
to  adjust  all  old  differences  ?     Most  certainly  it  was. 

It  has  been  said  that  this  article  infringes  the  rights  of  the  states.  As 
I  have  never  seen  any  argument  to  prove  this  assertion,  it  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  answer  it  by  another  assertion,  and  say  it  does  not. 

It  is  said  also,  that  this  article  impairs  the  obligation  of  private  con- 
tracts. As  this  is  asserted  without  explanation  or  proof,  it  will  be  passed 
without  notice. 

The  danger  of  aliens  holding  real  estate  in  any  countiy,  is  an  idea 
that  was  propagated  over  Europe  in  feudal  times,  and  modern  writers 
on  law  have  continued  to  transcribe  the  reasoning  on  that  subject,  from 
one  generation  to  another,  as  they  have  on  usury,  intolerance,  natural 
allegiance,  and  many  other  ancient  errors,  without  allowing  for  the 
meliorated  state  of  society  and  civil  policy.  The  danger,  however,  is 
now  a  mere  bugbear,  and  deserves  no  notice.  Men  may  hold  real 
estates,  without  the  other  privileges  of  citizens  ;  and  it  tends  to  promote 
commerce  to  admit  foreigners  to  this  privilege,  under  snitable  restric- 
tions. The  only  danger  that  now  exists  in  an  unlimited  privilege  of 
this  kind  is,  that  persons  might  possess  themselves  of  large  estates,  and 
spend  the  income  abroad,  as  is  the  case  with  the  planters  in  the  West 
Indies  and  the  Irish  nobility.  Should  this  ever  become  an  evil  of  ex- 
tent, it  will  require  legislative  remedies. 

But  it  is  an  important  idea,  which  the  United  States  should  cherish, 
that  men  are  never  enemies  to  a  free  country.  Men  may  scramble  for 
offices,  and  oppose  the  administration  of  a  government  from  selfish 
views ;  but  if  foreigners  find  peace,  liberty,  and  safety  in  our  country, 
they  will  hardly  give  themselves  the  trouble  of  subjecting  us  to  other 
governments.     A  liberality  in  our  measures  toward  foreigners,  strict 


196  VINDICATION    OF   THE   TREATY 

justice  and  impartiality  in  our  laws,  will  make  all  parties  our  friends, 
and  this  is  one  great  object  of  the  present  treaty. 

Decius  attempts  to  make  an  invidious  comparison  between  this  article 
of  the  treaty  and  the  eleventh  article  of  our  treaty  with  France,  which, 
he  says,  is  all  in  favor  of  the  Americans,  because  it  abolishes  the  droit 
d^aubaine  in  their  favor,  and  gives  the  French  nothing  which  the  law 
of  nations  did  not  secure  them  before.  To  prove  this  he  goes  into  a 
common  law  explanation  of  the  terms  used  in  the  French  treaty — goods 
movable  and  immovable.  The  words  of  the  eleventh  article  of  the 
treaty  with  France  are — "  The  subjects  and  inhabitants  of  the  United 
States  shall  not  be  reputed  aubains  in  France — they  may  dispose  of 
their  goods,  movable  and  immovable,  by  testament,  donation,  &c." 
Immovable  goods,  Decius  says,  mean  chattels  real,  but  not  estates  in 
fee,  and  quotes  Sir  Edward  Coke  and  Blackstone.  If  Decius  is  a  law- 
yer of  great  ingenuity,  as  he  doubtless  is,  he  ought  to  be  very  cautious 
to  conceal  his  subtilties.  His  far-fetched  arguments  to  make  the  French 
treaty  a  mere  act  of  benevolence  on  the  part  of  Louis  XVI,  and  the 
present  treaty  a  mere  sacrifice  on  our  part,  will  not,  ultimately,  succeed. 

The  explanation  given  by  Decius  to  the  terms  immovable  goods  is 
unequivocally  wrong.  Does  not  Decius  know  that  a  treaty  with  France 
is  not  to  be  interpreted  by  the  common  law  of  England  ?  Does  not  he 
know  that  the  terms  bona  immobilia,  immovable  goods,  are  borrowed 
from  the  civil  law,  that  the  civil  law  is  the  basis  of  almost  every  mu- 
nicipal constitution  in  Europe  ?  Does  he  not  recollect  that  the  municipal 
laws  of  France  were  derived  from  that  source,  and  that  terms  used  in 
that  country  are  to  be  explained  by  the  civil  law  ?  Is  not  a  treaty  with 
France  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  legal  import  of  the  words  in 
that  country  ?  Let  Decius  then  be  apprised,  that  bona  immobilia  is  a 
technical  phrase  as  old  as  the  civil  law,  and  that  it  comprehended  for- 
merly and  still  comprehends,  in  most  countries  of  Europe,  real  estate, 
that  is,  a  freehold  estate,  and  lands  in  fee,  as  well  as  chattels  real. 
When  used  by  writers  on  the  law  of  nations,  the  phrase  has  that  sense. 

"  Every  state  has  the  liberty  of  granting  or  refusing  foreigners  the 
power  of  possessing  lands  or  other  immovable  goods  within  its  territo- 
ry."— (Vattel,  book  ii,  ch.  8.)  In  the  same  page  are  these  expressions  : 
"  If  the  sovereign  does  not  permit  aliens  to  possess  immovables,  no  one 
has  a  right  to  complain  of  it,  as  the  sovereign  may  refuse  strangers  the 
power  of  possessing  immovables." — (So  also  in  book  iii,  ch.  5,  sec.  76.) 

The  foregoing  paragraph  relates  to  movable  goods,  but  the  rule  is 
different  with  regard  to  immovables,  to  estates  in  lands,  as  they  all  in 
some  measure  belong  to  the  nation,  are  part  of  its  domain,  &.C.,  and 
the  proprietor  being  always  a  subject  of  the  country  as  possessor  of  a 
parcel  of  land,  and  goods  of  this  nature  do  not  cease  to  be  the  enemy's 
goods,  though  possessed  by  a  neutral  stranger.  "  Nevertheless,  war 
being  now  carried  on  with  so  much  moderation  and  indulgence,  safe- 
guards are  allowed  to  houses  and  lands  possessed  by  foreigners  in  an 
enemy's  country.  For  the  same  reason,  he  who  declares  war  does  not 
confiscate  the  immovable  goods  possessed  in  his  country  by  his  enemy's 
subjects.  In  permitting  them  to  purchase  and  possess  those  goods,  he 
has,  in  this  respect,  admitted  them  into  the  number  of  his  subjects. 
But  the  income  may  be  sequestrated,  for  hindering  the  remittance  of  it 
to  the  enemy's  country." 


WITH   GREAT   BRITAIN   IN    1795.  197 

Bynkershoek  (Quest.  Jur.  Pub.  1,  c.  7)  uses  the  word  immobilia  in 
the  same  sense,  and  lays  down  the  doctrine  above  quoted  from  Vattel. 
But  the  most  direct  authority  in  point,  is  from  Domat's  Civil  Law,  pre- 
liminary book,  title  3,  sec,  1.  The  following  passage  is  express :  "  Im- 
movables are  all  the  parts  of  the  surface  of  the  earth,  in  what  manner 
soever  they  are  distinguished,  whether  into  places  for  buildings,  or  into 
woods,  meadows,  arable  lands,  vineyards,  orchards,  or  otherwise,  and 
to  whomsoever  they  belong." 

In  sect.  2,  of  the  same  title,  Domat  expressly  enumerates  lands, 
whether  allodial  or  charged  with  quit-rents,  among  immovables*  As 
this  writer  was  a  French  civilian,  he  doubtless  used  the  word  in  its 
technical  sense,  as  understood  in  France,  and  by  this  sense  must  our 
treaty  with  France  be  interpreted.  Indeed,  whatever  may  be  the  opin- 
ion of  lawyers  here,  I  have  no  doubt,  that  by  the  eleventh  article  of 
that  treaty,  French  citizens  are  fully  entitled  to  hold  real  estate  in  the 
United  States,  and  American  citizens  in  France. 

In  all  our  other  treaties,  the  article  in  question  restricts  the  subjects 
of  the  two  countries,  to  the  enjoyment  of  personal  estate  or  effects,  in 
the  jurisdiction  each  of  the  other.  Most  nations  retain  the  old  feudal 
jealousy  respecting  foreigners  possessing  lands  in  their  countries.  But 
the  liberality  of  France,  in  her  treaty  with  America,  ought  to  be  an 
example  to  all  nations  ;  and  the  United  States,  of  all  countries  on  earth, 
ought  to  reject  all  such  remains  of  feudal  prejudice.  I  trust  the  expla- 
nation before  given  of  the  terms  immovable  goods,  will  be  satisfactory  ; 
and  will  evince  the  truth  of  what  was  advanced  by  the  writer  of  "  Candid 
Remarks  on  the  Treaty,"  that  the  11th  article  of  our  treaty  with  France 
amounts  to  a  total  abolition  of  alienism,  between  the  two  countries. 

Unless  Decius  succeeds  better  hereafter  in  "  detecting  fallacies,"  he 
may  as  well  let  his  pen  rest,  or  employ  it  more  to  his  own  reputation. 
His  writings  on  the  subject,  so  far  as  they  have  hitherto  appeared,  are 
little  more  than  a  series  of  misrepresentation.  Curtius. 

No.  VI. — By  James  Kent. 

The  10th  article  of  the  treaty  provides  that  "  neither  the  debts  due 
from  individuals  of  the  one  nation  to  individuals  of  the  other,  nor  shares 
nor  moneys  which  they  may  have  in  the  public  funds,  or  in  the  public 
banks,  shall  ever  in  any  event  of  war  or  national  differences  be  seques- 
tered or  confiscated."  The  faithful  observance  of  the  restriction  con- 
tained in  this  article  is  so  much  for  our  interest  as  well  as  honor,  that 
we  should  naturally  have  concluded,  the  most  determined  enemies  to 
any  good  understanding  with  Great  Britain,  would  at  least  have  passed 
it  by  in  silence.  But  so  strong  are  the  prejudices  of  a  certain  party 
amongst  us,  or  so  virulent  their  passions,  that  they  have  given  to  almost 
every  paragraph  in  the  treaty  an  equal  condemnation.  Decius  has 
complained  of  this  article  as  being,  like  many  others,  exclusively  ad- 
vantageous to  England,  and  as  arresting  from  our  government  a  lawful 
and  powerful  weapon  of  war.  I  am  greatly  mistaken,  however,  if  it  is 
not  completely  defensible  against  every  part  of  this  accusation. 

*  It  deserves  remark,  that  the  French  word  hiens,  goods^  comprehends  estate  in 
land.     This  sense  is  borrowed  from  the  civil  law. 


i 


198  VINDICATION    OF   THE   TREATY 

It  is  true  that  by  the  law  of  nations,  as  existing  a  century  ago,  the 
debts  owing  from  one  nation  to  another  were  legal  objects  of  sequestra- 
tion in  war.  "  But  at  present  (to  use  the  language  of  Vattel,  book  iii,  ch. 
5,  sec.  77)  in  regard  to  the  advantage  and  safety  of  commerce,  all  the 
sovereigns  of  Europe  have  departed  from  this  rigor.  And  as  this  cus' 
torn  has  been  generally  received,  he  who  should  act  contrary  to  it  would 
injure  the  public  faith ;  for  strangers  trusted  his  subjects  only  from  a 
firm  persuasion  that  the  general  custom  would  be  observed.  The  state 
does  not  so  much  as  touch  the  sums  which  it  owes  to  the  enemy.  Ev- 
ery where,  in  case  of  a  war,  funds  credited  to  the  public,  are  exempt 
from  confiscation  and  seizure."  This  clear  explanation  of  the  modern 
law  of  nations,  as  far  as  it  relates  to  the  public  funds,  is  also  to  be  found 
in  a  report  of  the  English  judges  in  the  year  1753,  in  answer  to  the 
Prussian  memorial ;  a  report  of  much  authority,  which  Vattel  does  not 
scruple  to  call  an  excellent  piece  on  the  law  of  nations.  "  It  will  not 
be  easy,"  say  the  judges,  "  to  find  an  instance  where  a  prince  has 
thought  fit  to  make  reprisals  upon  a  debt  due  from  himself  to  private 
men.  There  is  a  confidence  that  this  will  not  be  done.  A  private  man 
sends  money  to  a  prince  upon  the  faith  of  an  engagement  of  honor, 
because  a  prince  can  not  be  compelled,  like  other  men,  in  an  adverse 
way,  by  a  court  of  justice.  So  scrupulously  did  England,  France  and 
Spain  adhere  to  this  public  faith,  that  even  during  the  war,  they  suf- 
fered no  inquiry  to  be  made  whether  any  part  of  the  public  debts  was 
due  to  subjects  of  the  enemy,  though  it  is  certain  many  English  had 
money  in  the  French  funds,  and  many  French  had  money  in  ours." 

But  these  principles  have  received  sanction  from  a  source,  which  the 
adversaries  of  the  article  will  be  disposed  to  admit  as  of  still  greater 
authority  and  respectability,  I  mean  from  the  proceedings  and  decision 
of  the  French  convention.  It  appears  from  Paris  papers  which  in 
April  last  were  translated  and  republished  in  the  Aurora,  that  in  the 
sitting  of  the  Convention,  Dec.  29,  1794,  after  the  house  had  passed  to 
the  order  of  the  day,  "  Johannot  read  the  following  articles  of  the  pro- 
jected decree,  which  were  as  follows — (here  follow  five  articles.) 

*'  Art.  6. — The  decree  concerning  the  sequestration  of  the  property 
of  the  subjects  of  the  powers  at  war  with  the  republic  is  annulled.  Such 
sums  as  have  been  paid  by  French  citizens  into  the  treasury  in  conse- 
quence of  those  decrees,  will  be  reimbursed."  This  article  occasioned 
some  debate.  Gaston  was  against  it.  Cambon  observed,  that  the  law 
of  sequestration  was  extorted  from  the  Convention  by  the  faction  of  Fa- 
bre  d' Eglantine  and  Danton,  but  ought  you  to  return  the  property  of  the 
Spanish  to  the  despot  of  Madrid  ?  Thiriot  agreed  with  Cambon.  Co- 
lombel  desired  the  assembly  to  annul  only  the  sequestration  of  the  sums 
due  for  commercial  relations.  Ramel  showed  that  the  law  of  seques- 
tration had  been  urged  by  the  foreigners  themselves  and  stockjobbers, 
that  it  had  prepared  the  ruin  of  commerce,  and  broken  ojf,  against  the 
rights  of  nations,  the  obligations  of  merchants  in  different  states ; 
though  the  powers  at  war  with  the  republic  should  not  repeal  the  se- 
questration of  French  property,  it  is  our  duty  to  set  the  example.  The 
sixth  article  was  maintained  as  reported" 

I  have  thought  it  not  useless  to  give  a  brief  sketch  of  this  very,  inter- 
esting proceeding  in  the  French  convention,  because  it  not  only  estab- 


WITH  GREAT  BRITAIN  IN  1795.  199 

Hshes  what  I  contend  to  be  the  law  of  nations,  but  exposes  the  injury 
and  injustice  of  departing  from  this  part  of  it  even  in  the  midst  of  the 
most  violent  war.  And  it  ought  to  be  remarked  to  the  honor  of  our 
country,  that  during  the  course  of  our  revolution,  notwithstanding  the 
warm  resentments  it  called  forth,  we  never  attempted  to  annul  the  Brit- 
ish debts,  but  finally  agreed  to  the  fourth  article  of  the  treaty  of  peace, 
"  that  creditors  on  either  side  should  meet  with  no  lawful  impediment 
to  the  recovery  of  all  bona  fide  debts  heretofore  contracted."  So  also 
in  the  Amsterdam  and  Antwerp  loans,  we  expressly  stipulated,  that  they 
should  not  be  impaired  on  the  event  of  a  future  war  between  the  two 
countries. 

I  think  it  will  be  evident  from  the  authorities  which  I  have  adduced, 
that  the  sequestration  and  confiscation  of  debts  and  public  stock,  are 
not  now  the  customary  and  admissible  weapons  of  war.  The  ancient 
maxims  on  this  head  are  justly  and  generally  exploded  by  civilized  na- 
tions, and  the  interests  of  commerce  in  this,  as  in  many  other  instances, 
have  happily  set  bounds  to  the  intemperance  of  Gothic  rage.  In  stipu- 
lating to  a  formal  renunciation  of  this  mode  of  warfare,  we  have  done 
no  more  than  what  we  were  bound  to  do  by  the  acknowledged  dictates 
of  good  faith.  We  have  renounced  a  weapon  which  our  own  sense  of 
right  and  policy  had  before  forbidden  us  to  use.  If  however  it  should 
be  supposed  that  occasions  may  sometimes  arise  in  which  it  would  be 
expedient,  for  the  purpose  of  more  effectually  wounding  our  enemies,  to 
attack  public  or  private  contracts,  then  let  me  ask,  what  difficulty  has 
the  treaty  thrown  in  the  way  ?  The  same  fierceness  of  character  which 
would  lead  us  to  violate  the  received  maxims  of  war  and  national  duty, 
would  readily  set  aside  the  moral  obligation  of  this  article.  Its  only 
effect  arises  from  laying  down  in  the  rational  season  of  peace,  the  rule 
of  conduct  in  war,  and  by  superadding  an  express,  to  the  implied,  sanc- 
tion of  good  faith. 

But  it  is  alledged  that  this  article  has  no  actual  reciprocity,  because 
all  the  debts  are  due  from  us  either  as  a  nation  or  as  individuals,  and 
that  our  citizens  hold  no  British  stock,  and  have  few  or  no  demands  up- 
on their  subjects.  If,  however,  this  species  of  confiscation  be  really  re- 
pugnant to  the  present  usage  of  nations,  and  is  unjust  and  impolitic,  the 
renunciation  was  equally  fit  and  proper,  whether  it  was  mutual  or  not, 
and  in  proportion  to  the  means  we  had  of  using  this  mode  of  warfare, 
does  the  sacrifice  redound  to  our  credit  and  character.  But  the  truth  is, 
that  the  beneficial  operation  of  this  article  is  principally  on  our  side. 
It  is  much  more  satisfactory  and  necessary  to  us,  than  it  is  to  Great 
Britain,  because  it  tends  directly  to  foster  and  strengthen  the  credit  of 
the  United  States,  both  public  and  private,  a  circumstance  of  the  utmost 
moment  to  our  prosperity  as  an  infant  nation. 

It  is  by  force  of  public  credit,  that  our  government  has  attained  to  its 
present  stability,  and  has  so  many  competent  means  of  acting  with  effi- 
cacy whenever  the  public  exigencies  require  it.  Credit,  as  a  good 
judge  of  our  interest  has  observed,  is  the  invigorating  principle  of  this 
country.  Any  addition  to  it,  however  small,  will  give  much  greater 
power  of  self-defense,  than  the  little  perfidious  and  exploded  resources 
of  corj^scating  debts  or  violating  the  pledged  negotiability,  and  sacred- 
ness  of  public  stock.     Nor  is  private  credit  of  much  less  utility  in  a 


VINDICATION    OP   THE   TREATY 

country  which  has  so  little  capital,  in  proportion  to  the  extent  and  vari- 
ety of  the  demands  for  it.  VVe  have  immense  territories  of  waste  land 
to  clear  and  settle  ;  and  abundance  of  raw  materials  for  nourishing  the 
manufacturing  and  mechanic  arts ;  but  to  answer  these  ends,  requires 
an  unceasing  supply  of  capital,  or  credit,  which  in  most  cases  is  its  eli- 
gible substitute.  In  short  there  are  no  people  upon  earth  who  have  so 
many  inducements  as  the  United  States,  to  declare  unequivocally  to  the 
world,  that  the  claims  of  their  creditors  shall  always  be  deemed  sacred 
in  peace  and  in  war. 

After  taking  such  a  full  view  of  the  subject,  we  can  not  withhold  our 
astonishment  that  Mr.  Burr  and  Mr.  Tazewell,  should  each  of  them,  in 
the  Senate,  by  formal  propositions  of  amendment,  single  out  this  article, 
among  others,  as  a  proper  object  of  censure  and  repeal.  There  is  one 
more  objection  to  this  article,  which  merits  some  attention  for  its  singu- 
larity ;  and  because  it  places  in  a  strong  light,  the  extreme  jealousy  or 
predetermination  to  condemn,  with  which  every  part  of  the  treaty  has 
been  read.  It  is  apprehended  or  rather  pretended  to  be,  that  the  king 
of  Great  Britain  will  engross  all  the  shares  of  our  several  American 
banks,  and  thereby  obtain  the  entire  control  of  them  and  fill  them  with 
British  directors.  It  is  just  as  rational  to  suppose  that  he  will  buy  up  all 
our  goods  and  chattels,  and  thereby  put  a  total  stop  to  agriculture  and 
manufactures.  If  the  king  of  Great  Britain  is  disposed  to  expend  his 
money  for  the  disturbance  of  our  government,  there  are  much  more 
effective  methods  of  doing  it  than  by  the  indirect  means  of  our  banks. 
Such  an  apprehension  is  ridiculous  in  the  extreme,  and  can  not  surely 
impose  on  the  most  credulous  mind,  especially  when  it  is  known  that 
the  several  bank  charters  expressly  provide  that  all  the  directors  shall 
he  American  citizens,  and  that  no  stockholder  shall  be  entitled  to  vote 
for  a  director  unless  he  either  attends  in  person  or  resides  within  the 
United  States. 

We  have  now  finished  an  examination  of  the  first  ten  articles  of  the 
treaty,  and  which  form  the  permanent  part ;  for  the  commercial  articles 
which  follow  being  of  more  difficult  adjustment,  and  their  efiect  not  be- 
ing so  easily  siscertained  by  theory  as  experience,  were  wisely  limited 
to  a  short  period.  It  has  often  been  asked,  and  with  an  air  of  conscious 
triumph,  what  single  equivalent  have  we  got  for  so  many  and  great 
concessions  on  our  part?  Let  us  review  for  a  moment  the  ground  we 
have  gone  over,  and  see  if  an  answer  can  not  be  given  which  will  satisfy 
all  the  real  friends  to  the  interest  of  our  country. 

We  have  gained  all  the  western  posts  without  bloodshed — we  have 
obtained  a  promise  of  complete  indemnity  for  all  unlawful  spoliations 
on  our  trade,  as  soon  as  an  impartial  tribunal  shall  have  ascertained  the 
amount  of  our  losses — we  have  obtained  a  liberal  and  permanent  com- 
merce between  our  frontiers  and  the  whole  frontier  of  the  British  prov- 
inces in  America,  and  we  have  by  these  means  removed  the  principal 
sources  of  national  complaint  against  Great  Britain,  and  secured  to  our 
country  the  continuance  of  the  blessings  of  peace.  And  what  have  we 
conceded  on  our  part .''  We  have  promised  to  pay  such  losses  only  as 
British  creditors  have  suffered  in  their  debts,  by  occasion  of  legal  imped- 
iments in  this  country,  as  soon  as  an  impartial  tribunal  shall  have  ascer- 
tained the  amount  of  such  losses,  and  to  pay  for  such  British  vessels 


WITH    GREAT    BRITAIN    IN    1795.  201 

only  as  we  have  suffered,  without  using  the  means  in  our  power  to  pre- 
vent it,  to  be  captured  within  our  territory,  contrary  to  the  law  of  nations. 
And  we  have  also  allowed  a  liberal  and  permanent  commerce  between 
Canada  and  our  interior  possessions.  These  are  the  material  parts  of 
the  permanent  treaty,  and  it  appears  that  both  nations  have  conceded, 
in  those  instances,  what  in  justice  and  equity  they  ought  to  have  done, 
and  to  have  manifested  a  mutual  disposition  to  forget  past  animosity,  and 
to  live  upon  friendly  terms  hereafter.  Curtitjs. 

No.  VII. — By  James  Kent. 

In  examining  the  commercial  part  of  the  treaty,  we  are  not  to  inquire, 
as  we  have  heretofore  done,  into  matter  of  strict  right.  Arrangements 
of  commerce  must  depend  upon  the  good  will  and  pleasure  of  the  con- 
tracting parties.  They  are  things  of  imperfect  obligation  only,  and  can 
not  be  peremptorily  demanded.  Every  nation  will  accommodate  so  far, 
and  so  far  only,  as  suits  her  interests  or  policy,  and  it  will  always  be  a 
question  to  be  determined  in  sound  discretion  by  other  powers,  how  far 
their  interest  or  policy  will  admit  of  a  connection,  on  such  terms  as  can 
be  obtained.  Commercial  propositions  may  be  granted,  acceded  to,  or 
rejected  by  either  party,  without  affording  to  the  other  any  just  cause  of 
war.  It  is  therefore  a  matter  for  consideration,  how  far  the  remaining 
articles  of  the  treaty  are  admissible  or  not,  upon  the  principles  of  pub- 
lic expediency. 

Although  the  12th  article  may  now  very  properly  be  left  out  of  dis- 
cussion, yet  since  it  is  the  fashion  to  reprobate  it  in  the  most  unqualified 
terms,  and  to  use  it  as  an  instrument  for  inflaming  the  public  passions, 
as  well  as  to  carry  disgrace  to  the  other  parts  of  the  work,  it  may  not 
be  amiss  to  give  it  some  examination. 

It  is  well  known  that  every  European  nation  has  endeavored,  more 
or  less,  to  monopolize  to  itself  the  commerce  of  its  colonies,  and  upon 
that  account  prohibited  the  ships  of  foreign  nations  from  trading  to 
them,  and  has  prohibited  them  from  importing  European  goods  from 
any  foreign  nation.  This  has  been  the  case  with  Denmark,  Holland, 
France,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  Great  Britain,  although  the  manner  in 
which  this  monopoly  has  been  exercised  in  those  different  nations,  has 
been  very  different.  Great  Britain  has  been  as  much  distinguished  as 
any  of  her  neighbors  during  a  century  past,  for  a  pertinacious  adhe- 
rence to  the  monopoly  system,  and  it  has  become  one  of  the  riveted 
maxims  of  her  policy,  to  regard  the  exclusive  enjoyment  of  her  colony 
trade,  as  an  essential  nursery  of  seamen,  and  a  constant  support  of  her 
naval  power.  So  late  as  the  year  1783,  Lord  Sheffield  gave  his  sanc- 
tion to  this  ancient  doctrine,  and  said  that  it  would  be  impolitic  in  Great 
Britain  to  admit  American  vessels  into  the  British  West  India  islands, 
and  we  see  with  what  great  allowance  we  ought  to  compare  the  privile- 
ges conceded  in  this  article,  with  the  theory  of  an  unlimited  commerce. 

The  French  convention,  during  their  present  revolution,  have  recog- 
nized and  adopted  the  English  policy.  This  appears  from  the  eloquent 
report  of  Barrere,  upon  their  navigation  act,  which  is  intended  for  per- 
petuity, and  is  declared  to  be  the  basis  of  their  policy  and  commerce. 
The  act  ordains,  that  no  commodities  shall  be  imported  into  France  but 

26 


202  VINDICATION  OF  THE  TREATY 

in  French  vessels,  or  in  those  of  the  country  which  produced  the  com- 
modity ;  and  that  foreign  vessels  shall  not  transport  from  one  French 
port  to  another,  any  commodities  of  the  growth  or  manufacture  of 
France  or  her  colonies.  And,  notwithstanding  the  necessities  of  the 
war  may  have  induced  the  French  to  a  temporary  departure  from  this 
act,  we  may  be  assured,  the  principles  advanced  in  the  report  are  too 
generally  and  powerfully  felt,  not  to  induce  them  to  adhere  to  it  on  the 
return  of  peace,  as  the  sure  basis  of  their  maritime  strength.  "  The 
prohibitions  of  a  navigation  act,"  says  Barrere,  "  should  be  as  extensive 
as  they  could  be  made,  for  without  them  it  would  be  a  mere  illusory 
measure.  The  English,"  continues  he,  "  from  whom  we  borrow  this 
system,  have  given  it  that  extension,  and,  indeed,  they  are  to  be  ap- 
plauded for  it." 

When  we  consider  the  value  that  is  attached  to  the  carrying  trade,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  European  nations,  we  have  no  reason  to  be  disap- 
pointed that  Mr.  Jay  could  not  get  access  to  the  British  islands  on  better 
terms.  It  was  to  have  been  wished  that  he  could  have  got  the  admis- 
sion of  vessels  of  any  burden  into  this  trade,  but  this  was  undoubtedly 
beyond  his  power.  While  Great  Britain  consented  to  admit  us  to  trade 
to  her  islands  in  our  own  bottoms,  we  may  be  assured  she  was  deter- 
mined to  do  it  in  such  a  manner  as  not  m.aterially  to  affect  her  carrying 
trade,  the  source  of  her  security  and  greatness.  This  must  have  been 
the  reason  with  her  for  restricting  our  vessels  to  seventy  tuns  and  under, 
(and  indeed  it  is  understood  that  the  treaty  was  kept  open  for  some 
time  on  the  part  of  Mr.  .Tay,  while  he  was  endeavoring  to  extend  this 
clause,)  and  from  carrying  any  melasses,  sugar,  coffee,  cocoa  or  coltorf, 
either  from  her  islands  in  vessels  of  the  United  States,  to  any  where 
but  this  country.  It  will  be  asked  why  Great  Britain  should  wish  to 
restrain  us  from  carrying  any  of  these  articles  to  Europe,  provided 
they  are  not  the  growth  of  her  islands  ?  The  answer  is,  that  nothing 
short  of  a  total  prohibition,  would  in  her  opinion,  effectually  secure  her 
carrying  trade,  since  her  own  and  foreign  sugar  or  coffee  would  not 
easily  be  distinguished,  and  any  modification  would  have  opened  a  wide 
door  to  elude  the  whole  intent  of  the  restraint,  would  have  rendered  the 
whole  prohibition,  to  use  the  words  of  Barrere,  a  mere  illusory  measure. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  vindicate  chher  the  justness  or  liberality  of 
this  policy  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  it 
appears  to  have  been  her  inflexible  policy,  and  to  which  she  thought 
herself  bound  in  duty  to  adhere.  The  only  question  is,  whether  there 
was  any  reasonable  prospect  at  present  of  our  obtaining  better  terms  ; 
and  if  not,  whether  it  was  not  upon  the  whole  for  our  interest  to  accept 
of  the  trade  upon  those  terms  ?  This  may  yet  be  a  doubtful  point, 
though  I  acknowledge  a  considerable  objection  to  the  12th  article  as  it 
now  stands,  that  is,  the  prohibition  to  carry  melasses,  sugar,  cotton,  &c. 
to  Europe,  is  so  general  as  to  include  those  articles  even  of  our  own 
production.  This  prohibition,  with  respect  to  coffee  and  sugar  in  par- 
ticular, it  is  said,  would  be  very  inconvenient  to  us  during  the  present 
war,  though  in  time  of  peace  it  would  be  of  no  consequence.  The  12th 
article  does  not  prohibit  us  from  exporting  any  of  those  articles  from 
the  other  West  India  islands  to  any  part  of  the  world.  We  are  only 
restricted  from  exporting  them  from  the  British  West  India  islands,  (ex- 


"WITH   GREAT    BRITAIN    IN    1795.  203 

cept  to  the  United  States,)  in  order  to  preserve  to  the  English  their  car- 
rying trade,  and  from  the  United  States  in  order  to  preserve  the  other 
r^traint  from  evasion. 

It  ought  not  to  be  forgotten,  that  this  article  was  limited  to  two  years 
from  the  conclusion  of  the  present  war,  and  then  the  contracting  parties 
were  to  endeavor  to  regulate  this  trade,  with  a  view  to  their  mutual  ad- 
vantage, and  the  extension  of  commerce ;  and  if  they  should  not  agree 
on  new  an-angements,  all  the  articles  of  the  treaty,  except  the  first  ten, 
were  to  fall  to  the  ground.  At  the  end  of  the  two  years  we  should 
most  probably  have  entered  on  the  negotiation  with  much  less  difficulty 
than  at  present.  The  British  West  Indies  would  have  been  for  some 
time  accustomed  to  the  benefits  of  our  trade,  and  have  got  into  the 
habit  of  placing  their  dependence  as  well  as  their  aflections  upon  it ; 
while  the  mother  country  would  have  been  a  little  familiarized  to  our 
trade  with  her  colonies,  and  her  jealousies  and  prejudices  would  proba- 
bly have  greatly  diminished  with  regard  to  it.  We  should  have  renew- 
ed the  discussion  with  all  those  advantages  which  we  now  want,  and 
the  chance  is,  that  the  intercourse  would  not  only  have  been  continued, 
but  have  been  attended  with  a  favorable  enlargement.  And  if  eventu- 
ally the  negotiation  should  have  failed  and  left  only  the  ten  first  articles 
of  the  treaty  remaining,  yet  those  articles,  as  we  noticed  in  the  last 
number,  are  well  worthy  of  the  mission,  since  they  restore  tranquillity 
and  justice  to  our  country. 

The  13th  article  of  the  treaty  relates  to  our  commerce  with  the  Brit- 
ish East  Indies,  and  all  the  advantages  which  are  conceded  to  us  by  this 
article,  are  without  the  smallest  pretended  equivalent  on  our  part.  The 
privileges  of  this  article  are  not  denied  by  those  who  have  been  most 
distinguished  for  their  indiscriminate  condemnation  of  the  whole  treaty. 
Decius  complains,  however,  that  our  commerce  was  on  a  better  footing 
before,  by  the  mere  permission  of  the  British  government.  It  is  suffi- 
cient to  observe,  in  answer  to  this,  that  the  same  permission  can  still 
be  continued :  there  is  nothing  in  this  article  which  prohibits  the  India 
coasting  trade.  It  would  have  been  unnecessary,  for  such  prohibition 
existed  before.  The  article  barely  declares,  that  none  of  its  privileges 
shall  be  construed  to  extend  to  the  coasting  trade.  In  other  respects  it 
leaves  that  trade  just  as  it  found  it,  under  the  precarious  pleasure  of  the 
British  government.  But  prior  to  this  article,  our  whole  intercourse 
with  British  East  India  was  a  matter  of  favor,  and  surely  it  is  a  very 
important  consideration  that  we  can  now  claim  it  as  a  matter  of  right. 
Mr.  Jefferson,  in  his  report  on  the  privileges  and  restrictions  of  our 
commerce  in  foreign  countries,  seems  to  have  thought  very  differently 
from  Decius,  on  the  subject  of  a  precarious  trade.  He  considered  a 
commerce  depending  on  the  sole  discretion  of  a  foreign  power,  as  a 
real  inconvenience.  "The  disadvantage  (he  observes)  of  a  tenure 
which  may  be  suddenly  discontinued,  was  experienced  by  our  mer- 
chants on  a  late  occasion.  The  embarrassments  of  the  moment  were 
great,  and  the  possibility  of  their  renewal  lays  our  commerce  to  Eng- 
land under  a  species  of  discouragement.  The  distinction  is  too  re- 
markable not  to  be  noticed,  that  our  navigation  is  excluded  from  the 
security  of  fixed  laws,  while  that  security  is  given  to  the  navigation  of 
pthers." 


204  VINDICATION    OF   THE   TBEATY 

These  remarks  of  Mr.  Jefferson  are  solid  ;  and  they  outweigh  a  thou- 
sand town-meeting  resolves.  Without  this  treaty  our  trade  to  every 
British  port  can  be  interdicted  by  a  nod  of  the  British  executive,  ^ut 
by  this  treaty,  our  commerce  to  England  and  the  East  Indies,  which 
now  rests  on  the  will  of  the  ministry  or  the  colonial  government,  is 
placed  on  the  footing  of  permanent  right.  In  this  respect  we  gain  an 
immense  advantage — an  advantage  that  we  do  not  enjoy  to  the  same 
extent  with  any  other  nation  upon  earth. 

The  commercial  concessions  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  which 
we  have  been  just  reviewing,  are  not  only  equal,  but  superior  to  those 
which  are  to  be  met  with  in  the  commercial  treaties  between  her  and 
other  powers  for  more  than  a  century  past. 

The  treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain  in  1667,  and  which  for 
its  advantages  in  matters  of  trade  was  confirmed  in  1713,  takes  special 
care  to  limit  the  commerce  of  the  two  nations  to  the  territories,  pro- 
vinces and  islands,  to  which  trade  and  commerce  had  before  been  accuS' 
tomed.  And  yet  two  years  afterward  his  Catholic  majesty,  as  an  evi- 
dence of  his  inclination  to  cultivate  friendship,  does  indeed  allow  tlie 
English  to  gather  salt  in  the  isle  of  Tortugas,  because  they  had  enjoyed 
that  liberty  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II. 

In  the  treaty  of  commerce  and  navigation  between  Great  Britain  and 
Russia,  which  was  made  in  the  year  1766,  the  friendly  privileges  of 
trade  between  the  two  powers,  were  confined  to  such  places  where  leave 
is  granted  to  the  subjects  of  other  nations.  In  the  same  spirit  of  jeal- 
ousy and  colony  monopoly,  which  appears  but  too  prevalent  throughout 
Europe,  Russia  takes  care  in  her  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  with 
Denmark,  in  the  year  1782,  to  except  from  the  commercial  grant,  her 
ports  of  the  Black  and  Caspian  Seas,  and  all  her  other  possessions  in 
Asia ;  and  the  king  of  Denmark,  on  his  part,  excepts  also  his  posses- 
sions in  America,  and  elsewhere  out  of  Europe.  Nay,  in  the  more 
recent  treaty  between  France  and  England  in  1786,  and  which  was 
made  with  the  express  view  of  promoting  a  more  liberal  intercourse, 
the  trade  is  limited  to  each  other's  territories  situated  in  Europe. 

Nor  have  our  own  treaties  of  commerce  with  the  powers  of  Europe 
been  more  favored  in  this  respect.  In  the  treaty  with  France,  on  which 
so  much  unqualified  applause  has  been  bestowed  by  the  enemies  of  the 
instrument  under  consideration,  there  is  no  very  extensive  admission  to 
her  colonial  possessions.  France  indeed  grants  us  as  a  matter  of  favor, 
one  or  more  free  ports  in  Europe,  and  the  free  ports  which  have  been 
and  are  open  in  the  French  islands  in  America.  And  in  our  treaty  of 
commerce  with  Holland,  we  expressly  stipulate  to  leave  to  the  Dutch 
the  peaceable  enjoyment  of  their  rights  in  the  countries^  islands^  and 
seas  in  the  East  and  West  Indies.,  without  any  hindrance  or  molesta- 
tion. This  is,  indeed,  stipulating  for  the  perpetuity  of  their  monopoly. 
On  the  other  hand.  Great  Britain,  by  the  13th  article  of  the  present 
treaty,  gives  us  a  free  and  liberal  admission  into  all  her  territories  in 
the  East  Indies  ;  an  immense  country,  which  contains  more  than  twenty 
millions  of  inhabitants,  is  guarded  by  an  army  of  above  seventy  thou- 
sand men,  and  yields  an  annual  revenue  of  more  than  eight  millions 
sterling.  And  the  only  restriction  to  which  we  bind  ourselves  in  return, 
is  not  to  carry  her  East  India  commodities  to  any  coimtry  but  America, 


"WITH   GREAT    BRITAIN    IN    1795.  205 

•vhere  they  shall  be  unladen — a  restriction  which  Britain  could  very 
reasonably  ask  as  a  security  to  her  carrying  trade. 

I  can  not  but  conclude,  that  every  reasonable  man  will  see  in  this  ar- 
iicle,  some  evidence  of  a  spirit  of  accommodation  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain,  and  much  proof  of  influence  and  ability  in  our  negotiator. 

CURTIUS. 

No.  vin. 

Art.  14. — ^This  article  admits  Americans  to  a  free  trade  to  the  Brit- 
ish dominions  in  Europe,  and  British  subjects  to  the  same  free  trade  in 
■the  United  States. 

One  would  think  this  article  so  reciprocal  as  to  admit  of  no  ground 
of  censure.  But  even  this  article  has  not  given  us  an  equivalent  in  the 
opinion  of  some  men,  who  contend,  that  as  British  vessels  are  excluded 
from  no  port  in  the  United  States,  so  American  vessels  ought  to  be  ex- 
cluded from  no  port  in  the  British  territories. 

Decius  says,  "  we  can  only  go  to  a  small  part  of  the  British  domin- 
ions, viz.  to  those  in  Europe  ;"  and  he  should  have  added,  we  are  ad- 
mitted there  only  by  proclamation  from  year  to  year. 

But  does  Decius  value  a  commercial  country  by  its  geographical 
dimensions  ?  Do  these  constitute  the  greatness  or  smallness  of  com- 
mercial privileges  ?  This  certainly  is  a  new  doctrine  ;  and  the  chi- 
canery of  such  insinuations  deserves  reprobation  by  every  honest  man. 

No  matter  what  is  the  size  of  Great  Britain — admit  that  it  does  not 
comprehend  more  land  than  the  state  of  New  York  has,  in  a  republican 
humor,  sold  to  an  individual ;  this  is  nothing  to  the  point.  The  trade  of 
that  spot  of  earth,  is  at  least  double,  not  to  say  treble,  the  trade  of  the 
United  States.  By  admitting  American  citizens  to  a  free  participation 
of  this  commerce,  we  have  more  than  an  equivalent  for  a  free  admis- 
sion of  British  vessels  into  all  the  ports  of  the  United  States. 

The  reflection  of  Decius,  that  our  "  envoy  has,  in  this  place,  brought 
the  principles  of  inequality  into  conspicuous  action,  as  if  anxious  to 
circumscribe  our  commerce,  and  that  he  loses  no  opportunity  of  impo- 
sing restrictions  on  it,"  has  not  a  shadow  of  foundation — it  is  the  fabri- 
cation of  a  most  malignant  mind.  The  whole  article  is  founded  on  most 
equal  and  reciprocal  principles,  so  far  as  regards  Great  Britain,  inde- 
pendent of  her  colonies  :  but  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of  the  manufac- 
tures and  exports  of  that  country,  it  is  most  advantageous  to  America. 

It  is  said  we  are  not  admitted  into  all  the  British  colonies.  True ; 
but  such  admission  would  be  a  concession  to  us  without  an  equivalent, 
for  we  have  no  colonies  to  exchange  the  benefit. 

Let  us  contrast  this  article  with  the  privileges  obtained  by  the  treaty 
with  France,  negotiated  by  the  "  venerable  Franklin."  By  the  30th 
article  of  that  treaty,  "  The  most  Christian  majesty  will  grant  the  sub- 
jects of  the  United  States  one  or  more  free  ports  in  Europe,  and  the 
free  ports  which  have  been  and  are  open  in  the  French  islands."  Since 
the  revolution,  necessity  has  compelled  the  Convention  to  open  all  the 
ports  in  France  :  but  which  nation  was  most  liberal  in  times  of  peace, 
or  most  jealous  of  its  trade  ? 

Great  Britain  opens  all  her  ports  in  Europe — all  her  ports  in  the 
East  Indies — and  all  her  ports  in  the  West  Indies,  to  vessels  of  small 


206  VINDICATION    OF   THE    TREATY 

burden,  restricting  only  the  direct  carrying  trade  from  her  colonies  to 
Europe.  France  opened  one  or  more  ports  in  Europe,  some  of  her 
ports  in  the  West  Indies,  and  not  one  in  the  East  Indies. 

This  is  a  fair  statement  of  the  advantages  of  trade  with  the  two 
countries,  as  we  enjoyed  them  with  France  before  the  revolution,  and 
as  we  should  enjoy  them  by  the  present  treaty  with  Great  Britain  ;  and 
let  any  man  decide,  which  treaty  is  the  most  liberal,  in  respect  to  open- 
ing the  ports  of  the  two  countries  and  their  colonies.  The  advantage 
is  infinitely  on  the  side  of  the  present  treaty  with  Great  Britain. 

Art.  15. — This  article  stipulates  that  each  nation  shall  be  treated  by 
the  other,  on  the  footing  of  the  most  favored  nation.  So  far  the  article 
corresponds  exactly  with  all  our  other  treaties  :  viz,  with  France,  Swe- 
den, Holland  and  Prussia.  The  second  clause  of  the  article,  reserving 
to  Great  Britain  the  right  of  imposing  duties  on  our  tunnage,  equal  to 
what  we  impose  on  British  tunnage  in  our  ports,  concedes  nothing  but 
what  Great  Britain  now  enjoys ;  that  is,  the  right  of  treating  our  trade 
as  we  treat  hers.  And  the  agreement  in  the  laist  clause,  that  the  United 
States  will  not  for  a  certain  period  increase  ihe  duties  on  British  tun- 
nage, is  a  restriction  that  can  not  injure  our  trade. 

Indeed  no  objection  seems  to  be  made  to  this  article,  except  that  it 
binds  the  United  States  to  treat  Great  Britain  as  well  as  we  treat  other 
nations.  This,  with  men  of  party  spirit,  who  suffer  their  passions  to 
lead  their  opinions,  is  a  most  unpardonable  crime. 

I  trust,  however,  that  the  government  of  America  will  regulate  its 
measures,  even  toward  Great  Britain,  with  justice  and  impartiality.  I 
am  persuaded  it  is  not  only  most  honorable,  but  most  expedient ;  and 
that  justice  and  a  spirit  of  accommodation  will  procure  more  advantages 
than  a  revengeful,  retaliating,  hostile  disposition. 

The  16th  article,  respecting  consuls,  is  probably  not  objectionable.  :w 

Art.  17. — This  is  one  of  the  articles  which  has  excited  the  most  vio- 
lent clamors.  Indeed  we  can  not  but  observe,  that  such  articles  as  may 
affect  the  French,  are  reprobated  with  more  warmth  than  those  which 
affect  solely  the  interests  of  the  United  States.  It  would  seem  by  the 
zeal  discovered  on  this  occasion,  that  this  treaty  ought  first  to  have  con- 
sulted the  wants  and  wishes  of  France  ;  and  the  interests  of  the  United 
States  ought  to  have  been  only  a  secondary  consideration.  There  is 
certainly  a  precept  of  high  authority,  "  that  we  should  love  our  neighbor 
as  ourselves ;"  but  I  know  of  no  rule  that  requires  one  nation  to  love 
another  better  than  itself. 

I  am  disposed  to  treat  the  French  nation  with  the  utmost  impartiality, 
justice  and  friendship  ;  and  in  our  compacts  with  their  enemies,  we 
ought  to  make  no  sacrifices  of  their  interest,  and  yield  no  points  to  their 
enemies,  which  the  necessity  of  the  case  and  the  essential  interests  of 
our  own  country  do  not  require. 

By  this  maxim  let  the  articles  which  may  affect  France  be  fairly  ex- 
amined. 

The  great  objection  to  the  17th  article  is,  that  it  "  has  solemnly  re- 
linquished a  point,  which  to  us  was  of  more  value  than  the  amount  of 
all  the  depredations  on  our  trade,  the  sums  due  to  us  for  negroes,  and 
losses  by  detention  of  our  posts."  Now,  what  is  the  point  relinquished  ? 
The  answer  is,  nothing  which  was  our  own ;  nothing  which  we  could 
command ;  nothing  which  tlie  British  nation  did  not  enjoy  before. 


WITH   GREAT    BRITAIN    IN    1795.  207 

The  article  stipulates,  that  vessels  captured  on  suspicion  of  having 
enemies'  property  on  board,  or  of  carrying  contraband  articles  to  an 
enemy,  shall  be  brought  into  the  nearest  or  most  convenient  port,  and 
if  any  property  of  an  enemy  is  found  on  board,  that  part  only  which 
belongs  to  the  enemy  shall  be  made  prize.  This  is  said  to  be  a  relin-- 
quishment  of  an  important  point  on  our  part.  This  is  a  gross  misrep- 
resentation. 

Relinquishment  implies  an  abandonment  of  something  possessed.  If 
we  never  had  a  right  to  prevent  the  capture  of  our  vessels,  on  suspicion 
of  having  enemies'  property  on  board,  and  to  prevent  the  seizure  of 
that  property,  then  we  have  not  relinquished  it.  But  that  right,  with 
respect  to  nations  not  in  treaty  with  us,  we  never  possessed ;  we,  there- 
fore, have  yielded  nothing  that  we  before  enjoyed. 

By  the  law  of  nations,  any  neutral  vessel  may  be  stopped  and 
searched,  and  any  property  of  an  enemy  found  on  board,  may  be 
seized.  This  law  can  not  be  altered  but  by  consent  of  the  contracting 
parties. 

This  being  the  true  state  of  things,  what  has  the  article  of  the  treaty 
stipulated  ?  Observe  the  terms.  It  is  not  said  the  property  of  an 
enemy  may  be  taken — but,  taking  the  right  for  granted,  it  says,  the 
enemi/s  property^  only^  shall  be  made  prize. 

The  article  further  stipulates,  and  this  was  obviously  the  main  pur- 
pose of  inserting  it  in  the  treaty,  that  the  vessel  shall  be  suffered  to  pro- 
ceed with  the  rest  of  her  cargo,  without  impediment — that  there  shall 
be  no  delay  in  deciding  on  such  cases  and  in  the  payment  or  recovery 
of  indemnification  by  the  owners  or  by  the  masters  of  the  vessels. 

In  short,  the  whole  amount  of  the  article  is,  that  the  practice  of 
stopping  and  examining  ships  for  enemy's  property — a  practice  au- 
thorized by  the  law  of  nations — a  practice  which  Great  Britain  will  not 
resign,  and  which  we  can  not  persuade  or  compel  her  to  resign — that 
this  practice  shall  be  rendered  as  little  inconvenient  to  our  trade  as  pos- 
sible. The  article  was  intended  to  restrain,  as  far  as  possible,  the 
abuses  of  this  practice  by  licentious  privateers. 

There  are  many  men,  who,  without  any  rule  of  conduct  prescribed 
to  them,  would  behave  with  unbounded  licentiousness;  but  if  a  national 
compact  is  before  their  eyes,  they  will  respect  the  rules  prescribed.  So 
far,  therefore,  as  the  article  goes,  it  can  do  no  hanrj ;  but  it  may  and 
often  will  do  good. 

But  to  exhibit  this  thing  in  still  stronger  light,  I  will  give  the  whole 
of  Mr.  Jefferson's  letter  on  the  subject.  It  is  an  answer  to  a  remon- 
strance from  Mr.  Genet  to  the  President,  respecting  the  seizure  of 
French  property  on  board  of  American  vessels,  dated  July  9,  1793. 
It  is  the  very  point -in  question,  and  as  the  reasoning  of  Mr.  Jefferson  is 
in  the  present  case  unanswerable,  it  is  proper  the  public  should  have 
the  letter  entire. 

Philadelphia,  July  24th,  1793. 

Mr.  Jefferson^  Secretary  of  State,  to  Mr.  Genet,  Minister  Plenipo- 
tentiary of  France. 
Sir — Your  favor  of  the  9th  inst.  covered  the  information  of  Silvat 
Ducamp,  Pierre  Nouvel,  Chouquet  de  Savarence,  Gaston  de  Nogere, 


208  VINDICATION    OF    THE    TREATY 

and  G.  Beustier,  that  being  on  their  passage  from  the  French  West  In- 
dies to  the  United  States,  with  slaves  and  merchandise  of  their  prop- 
erty, these  vessels  were  stopped  by  British  armed  vessels,  and  their 
property  taken  out  as  lawful  prize. 

I  believe  it  can  not  be  doubted,  but  that  by  the  general  law  of  nations, 
the  goods  of  a  friend  found  in  the  vessels  of  an  enemy,  are  free,  and 
the  goods  of  an  enemy,  found  in  the  vessel  of  a  friend,  are  lawful  prize. 
Upon  this  principle,  I  presume,  the  British  armed  vessels  have  taken 
the  property  of  French  citizens  found  in  our  vessels,  in  the  cases  above 
mentioned,  and  I  confess  I  should  be  at  a  loss  on  what  principle  to  re- 
claim it.  It  is  true,  that  sundry  nations,  desirous  of  avoiding  the  incon- 
venience of  having  their  vessels  stopped  at  sea,  ransacked,  carried  into 
port,  detained,  under  pretense  of  having  enemy's  goods  on  board,  have, 
in  many  instances,  introduced  by  their  special  treaties,  another  principle 
between  them,  that  enemy  bottoms  shall  make  enemy  goods,  and  friend- 
ly bottoms,  friendly  goods  ;  a  principle  much  less  embarrassing  to  com- 
merce, and  equal  to  all  parties  in  point  of  gain  and  loss  ;  but  this  is  alto- 
gether the  effect  of  particular  treaty,  controlling,  in  special  cases,  the 
general  principle  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  therefore  taking  effect  be- 
tween such  nations  only  as  have  so  agreed  to  control  it.  England  has 
generally  determined  to  adhere  to  the  rigorous  principle,  having,  in  no 
instance,  as  far  as  I  recollect,  agreed  to  the  modification  of  letting  the 
property  of  the  goods  follow  that  of  the  vessel,  except  in  the  single  one 
of  her  treaty  with  France.  We  have  adopted  this  modification  in  our 
treaties  with  France,  the  United  Netherlands,  and  Prussia ;  and  there- 
fore, as  to  them,  our  vessels  cover  the  goods  of  their  enemies,  and  we 
lose  our  goods  when  in  the  vessels  of  their  enemies.  Accordingly,  you 
will  be  pleased  to  recollect,  that  in  the  late  case  of  Holland  and  Mackie, 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  who  had  laden  a  cargo  of  flour  on  board  a 
British  vessel,  which  was  taken  by  the  French  frigate  Ambuscade,  and 
brought  into  this  port ;  when  I  reclaimed  the  cargo,  it  was  only  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  ignorant  of  the  declaration  of  war  when  it  w£is 
shipped. 

You  observed,  however,  that  the  14th  article  of  our  treaty  had  pro- 
vided that  ignorance  should  not  be  pleaded  beyond  two  months  after  the 
declaration  of  war,  which  term  had  elapsed,  in  this  case,  by  some  few 
days ;  and  finding  that  to  be  the  truth,  though  their  real  ignorance  was 
equally  true,  I  declined  the  reclamation,  as  it  never  was  in  my  view  to 
reclaim  the  cargo,  nor  in  yours  to  offer  to  restore  it,  by  questioning 
the  rule  established  in  our  treaty,  that  enemy  bottoms  make  enemy 
goods.  With  England,  Spain,  Portugal  and  Austria,  we  have  no  trea- 
ties ;  therefore  we  have  nothing  to  oppose  to  their  acting  according  to 
the  general  law  of  nations,  that  enemy  goods  are  lawful  prize,  though 
found  in  the  bottoms  of  a  friend.  Nor  do  I  see  that  France  can  suffer, 
on  the  whole,  for  though  she  loses  her  goods  in  our  vessels,  when  found 
therein  by  England,  Spain,  Portugal  or  Austria,  yet  she  gains  our  goods 
when  found  in  the  vessels  of  England,  Spain,  Portugal,  Austria,  the  Uni- 
ted Netherlands  or  Prussia ;  and  I  believe  I  may  safely  affirm,  that  we 
have  more  goods  afloat  in  the  vessels  of  these  six  nations,  than  France 
has  afloat  in  our  vessels,  and  consequently,  that  France  is  the  gainer,  and 
we  the  loser,  by  the  principle  of  our  treaty ;  indeed  we  are  losers  in 


WITH  GREAT   BRITAIN    IN    1795.  SCf® 

every  direction  of  that  principle  ;  for  when  it  works  in  our  favor,  it  is 
to  save  the  goods  of  our  friends ;  when  it  works  against  us,  it  is  to  lose 
our  own ;  and  we  shall  continue  to  lose  while  the  rule  is  only  partially 
established.  When  we  shall  have  established  it  with  all  nations,  we 
shall  be  in  a  condition  neither  to  gain  nor  lose,  but  shall  be  less  exposed 
to  vexatious  searches  at  sea.  To  this  condition  we  are  endeavoring  to 
advance  ;  but  as  it  depends  on  the  will  of  other  nations,  as  well  as  our 
own,  we  can  only  obtain  it  when  they  shall  be  ready  to  concur. 

I  can  not,  therefoi'e,  but  flatter  myself,  that  on  revising  the  cases  of 
Ducamp  and  others,  you  will  perceive,  that  their  losses  result  from  the 
state  of  war,  which  has  permitted  their  enemies  to  take  their  goods, 
though  found  in  our  vessels,  and  consequently,  from  circumstances  over 
which  we  have  no  control. 

The  rudeness  to  their  persons  practiced  by  their  enemies,  is  certainly 
not  favorable  to  the  character  of  the  latter.  We  feel  for  it  as  much  as 
for  the  extension  of  it  to  our  own  citizens,  their  companions,  and  find 
in  it  a  motive  for  requiring  measures  to  be  taken,  which  may  prevent 
repetitions  of  it.*  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c. 

Th.  Jefferson. 

I  beg  the  reader  to  note  the  following  clause  of  the  foregoing  letter : 
"  To  this  condition  we  are  endeavoring  to  advance  ;  but  as  it  depends 
on  the  will  of  other  nations,  as  well  as  our  own,  we  can  only  obtain  it 
when  they  shall  be  ready  to  concur." 

I  will  close  with  remarking,  that  by  our  treaty  with  France,  it  is  ex- 
pressly stipulated,  that/ree  ships  should  make/ree  goods.  The  Conven- 
tion, however,  in  1793,  ordered  vessels,  laden  with  provisions,  to  be 
carried  into  their  ports,  in  violation  of  that  treaty.  They  afterward  re- 
voked the  decree  with  respect  to  American  vessels.  They  afterward 
extended  the  decree  to  American  vessels,  in  defiance  of  the  treaty.  A 
few  months  ago,  they  relented,  confessed  they  had  ill-treated  their  allies, 
and  annulled  the  decree  a  second  time.  A  statement  of  these  facts 
was  made  by  the  President  to  Congress,  Dec.  5,  1793.  See  his  address 
of  that  date,  prefixed  to  the  correspondence  between  Mr.  Jefferson  and 
Mr.  Hammond, 

Such  unsteadiness  in  public  measures  operates  peculiarly  to  the  pre- 
judice of  trade.  The  merchant,  if  he  knows  enemy's  property  is  liable 
to  seizure,  may  avoid  risk  by  declining  to  take  it  on  board.  But  when 
a  nation  is  changing  its  regulations  on  this  head,  the  merchant  is  exposed 
to  vexations,  without  the  power  of  avoiding  the  evil.  Curtius. 

No.  IX. 

Art.  18. — This  is  one  of  the  articles  in  the  treaty  which  gives  great 
offense.  The  objections  to  it  are — "  that  it  enumerates  among  contra- 
band goods,  timber  for  ship-building,  tar  and  rosin,  copper  in  sheets, 
sails,  hemp  and  cordage,  and  generally  whatever  may  serve  directly  to 
the  equipment  of  vessels,  unwrought  iron  and  fir  planks  only  excepted ; 
and  that  it  admits  provisions  in  certain  cases  to  be  contraband,"  contra- 

*  In  opposition  to  the  principles  stated  in  this  letter,  see  the  Essay  on  the  Rights 
cf  XeutrcUs  in  the  preceding  pages. 

27 


210  VINDICATION    OF    THE    TREATY 

ry  to  all  other  treaties,  and  even  contrary  to  the  treaty  of  1786,  between 
Great  Britain  and  France. 

I  frankly  acknowledge  that  no  part  of  %e  treaty  is  more  vulnerable 
than  this :  no  part  can  furnish  more  substantial  grounds  of  complaint. 
This  article  proceeds  from  a  strict  adherence  on  the  part  of  Great  Brit- 
ain, to  the  law  of  nations,  which  favors  her  superiority  as  a  great  mari- 
time power ;  and  its  defense  rests  on  the  inability  of  our  envoy  to  pro- 
cure a  relaxation  of  those  laws. 

The  time  for  negotiating  this  article  was  unfavorable,  as  in  most  other 
respects  it  was  favorable.  Great  Britain,  always  anxious  to  preserve 
her  naval  strength,  the  great  and  only  bulwark  of  the  nation,  is  now  en- 
gaged in  a  most  inveterate  war  with  France,  a  war  on  which  her  very 
existence  depends,  and  at  this  time,  will  not  yield  one  clause  of  the  law 
of  nations,  to  abridge  her  own  power  of  crippling  the  naval  force  of  her 
enemy.  This  is  a  fixed  point ;  and  our  envoy  could  only  admit  the  arti- 
cle in  that  form. 

There  were  but  two  alternatives,  both  of  which  would  result  in  the 
same  consequences  to  our  trade.  This  idea  is  an  important  one.  If  the 
article  had  been  rejected  by  our  minister.  Great  Britain  actually  exer- 
cises  the  right  by  the  general  law  of  nations,  to  consider  all  those  arti- 
cles contraband,  and  to  declare  them  such,  when  she  judges  that  by 
these  means  she  can  reduce  her  enemy.  If  the  article  was  received, 
it  could  give  no  greater  latitude  to  Great  Britain  than  she  enjoyed  be- 
fore. Whichever  alternative  our  envoy  might  choose,  our  trade  must 
be  subject  to  the  exercise  of  the  same  right  and  to  the  same  embarrass- 
ments. 

If  the  right  of  treating  all  the  articles  mentioned  as  contraband,  re- 
sults from  the  law  of  nations,  and  if  Great  Britain  will  not  abandon 
that  right,  is  it  not  better,  in  a  treaty  of  a  temporary  nature,  to  accede 
to  the  right,  and  enumerate  the  articles  which  are  liable  to  seizure  and 
confiscation,  that  our  merchants  may  know  the  law,  and  avoid  losses, 
than  to  suffer  that  right  to  stand  on  the  law  of  nations,  which  is  less 
known,  and  which  might  expose  our  citizens  to  heavy  losses  ? 

Every  liberal  man  must  wish  to  see  the  field  of  confiscations  in  war 
narrowed  as  much  as  possible  ;  but  if  we  can  not  circumscribe  that  field, 
is  it  not  of  great  importance  to  our  citizens,  to  mark  out  the  ground  with 
distinct  lines,  that  every  man  may  distinguish  it  and  shun  the  danger  ? 
Every  rational  person  will  say  it  is ;  and  this  is  the  effect  of  this  arti- 
cle of  the  treaty. 

I  know  it  has  been  contended  that  timber  and  provisions  are  not,  by 
the  law  of  nations,  contraband.  But  Vattel,  a  modern  French  writer, 
of  the  highest  authority,  includes  them  among  contraband  goods.  His 
words  are,  "  commodities  particularly  used  in  war,  and  the  importa- 
tion of  which  to  an  enemy  is  prohibited,  are  called  contraband  goods. 
Such  are  arms,  military  and  naval  stores,  timber,  horses,  and  even  pro- 
visions, in  certain  junctures,  when  there  are  hopes  of  reducing  the  en- 
emy by  famine." — (Book  iii,  ch.  7,  sec.  112.) 

The  words  naval  stores,  include  cordage,  hemp,  tar,  rosin,  and  eve- 
ry thing  that  ser\'es  for  the  equipment  of  ships  of  war.  In  the  treaty 
of  1786,  Great  Britain  and  France  had  excepted  naval  stores  and  pro- 
visions from  the  list  of  contraband  articles.     That  treaty  is  annulled 


WITH   GREAT   BRITAIN   IN    1795.  2ll 

by  the  present  war.  But  naval  stores  are  generally  considered  by 
Great  Britain  as  contraband  by  the  general  law  of  nations.  The  right 
to  consider  them  so  can  be  abridged  only  by  treaty  ;  and  Great  Britain, 
at  this  moment,  will  consent  to  no  such  abridgment. 

Some  people  say,  it  is  better  to  let  this  point  rest  on  the  law  of  na- 
tions, than  to  admit  it  in  a  treaty.  This  is  merely  a  matter  of  expedi- 
ence ;  but  if  the  safety  of  the  merchant's  property  is  consulted,  it  is 
unquestionably  better  to  have  the  contraband  articles  enumerated. 

The  stipulations  in  the  second  and  third  clause  of  the  18th  article, 
are  in  favor  of  neutral  vessels.  The  agreement,  that  when  provisions 
are  regarded  as  contraband,  they  shall  be  paid  for  to  their  full  value, 
with  a  mercantile  profit,  freight,  and  demurrage,  is  a  rule  of  direction 
to  the  captors,  that  may  prove  favorable  to  a  neutral  trade,  subject  to 
be  embarrassed  by  powers  at  war.  And  the  provision  of  the  last 
clause,  that  neutral  vessels  entering  a  blockaded  port,  not  knowing  it  to 
be  blockaded,  shall  not  be  seized  and  confiscated  for  the  first  attempt, 
is  equally  salutary  and  favorable. 

Art.  19. — This  article  provides  against  the  ill  usage  which  the  sub- 
jects of  neutral  powers  are  liable  to  receive  from  the  commanders  of 
ships  of  war  and  privateers.  This  article  is  common  in  treaties — it  is 
in  nearly  the  same  words  as  in  all  our  other  treaties  with  foreign  nations. 
But  it  will  be  of  much  more  use  between  Great  Britain  and  America, 
as  it  will  operate  as  a  prohibition  against  impressing  American  seamen 
on  board  of  English  ships.  It  has  been  objected  to  the  treaty,  that  no 
provision  of  this  kind  is  included  in  it.  But  the  19th  article  is  a  direct 
prohibition  of  this  practice. 

On  account  of  a  sameness  of  language,  it  is  desirable  that  some  ef- 
fectual mode  might  be  devised  to  distinguish  American  from  British 
seamen.  It  might  be  of  importance  that  American  seamen  should  be 
provided  with  certificates  of  their  citizenship,  under  the  seal  of  some 
public  officer.  This  doubtless  deserves  the  attention  of  our  executive, 
perhaps  of  Congress,  as  not  only  British  commanders,  but  French  also, 
have  mistaken  American  seamen  for  British,  and  our  citizens  are  thus 
exposed  to  injustice  from  both  parties. 

It  has  been  objected  that  the  bonds  required  of  the  commanders  of 
privateers  to  indemnify  persons  injured,  are  not  large  enough — the  sums 
being  limited  to<£1500  sterling  for  small  privateers,  and  .£3000  sterling* 
in  case  the  privateer  carries  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  men.  It 
is  sufficient  to  say,  in  answer  to  this,  that  few  cases  can  occur,  where 
damages  to  a  greater  amount  will  be  incurred  ;  and  where  the  bonds  do 
not  secure  the  damages,  a  complaint  to  government  will  ensure  any  fur- 
ther claims  founded  in  justice. 

It  may  be  observed,  that  this  clause  of  the  article  is  copied  nearly 
from  a  similar  one  in  the  treaty  of  1786,  between  Great  Britain  and 
France.  The  sums  limited  by  that  treaty  are  the  same  ;  and  will  prob- 
ably be  found  equal  to  all  necessary  purposes. 

The  last  clause  obliges  judges  of  admiralty,  in  case  any  sentence  of 
condemnation  has  been  pronounced  against  vessels  or  goods,  to  deliver 

•  The  sums  of  £1500  and  £3000,  are  the  same  as  specified  in  treaties  for  more 
than  a  century. 


212  VINDICATION    OF    THE    TREATY 

on  demand  authentic  copies  of  the  proceedings  to  the  master,  he  pay- 
ing the  legal  fees.  A  stipulation  of  this  kind  was  necessary,  as  instan- 
ces of  delay  and  refusal  of  such  copies  have  been  experienced  by  our 
citizens  during  the  present  war. 

The  20th  article  is  usual  in  all  treaties.  It  makes  provision  for  guard- 
ing property  from  pirates,  or  restoring  it  to  its  proper  owners — a  pro- 
vision of  mutual  benefit  to  the  contracting  parties,  and  liable  to  no  ob- 
jection. CuRTltJS. 

No.  X. 

Art.  21. — This  article  prohibits  the  subjects  of  the  contracting  par- 
ties, to  commit  acts  of  hostility  against  each  other — to  accept  commis- 
sions from  a  foreign  prince  or  state,  enemies  to  the  other  party — to  en- 
list them  into  military  service,  &c.  and  declares  that  the  laws  against 
such  oifenses  shall  be  punctually  executed.  The  law  of  the  United 
States,  passed  in  June,  1794,  enacts  the  penalty  of  a  fine,  not  exceed- 
ing $2000,  and  imprisonment  for  the  foregoing  offenses. 

The  same  article  of  the  treaty  makes  it  piracy  to  accept  a  foreign 
commission  or  letter  of  marque,  for  arming  any  privateer  to  act  against 
the  other  party.  This  is  prohibited  also  by  the  same  law  of  the  United 
States,  under  a  penalty  of  imprisonment,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court, 
and  a  fine  not  exceeding  $5000. 

When  the  treaty  first  appeared,  this  article  excited  much  acrimony. 
It  was  considered  as  pointed  at  the  military  maneuvers  of  a  late  French 
minister,  who  had  attempted  to  excite  Americans  to  war  against  the 
Spanish  settlements,  and  to  privateering  against  Great  Britain.  It  weis 
supposed  to  restrain  the  right  of  expatriation  ;  a  doctrine  first  propaga- 
ted by  the  same  Frenchman,  to  evade  the  law  of  nations,  and  a  doc- 
trine which  never  would  have  entered  the  heads  of  our  citizens,  had 
it  not  been  taught  by  that  artful  sophist.  In  giving  their  decided 
opinion  against  this  article  of  the  treaty,  many  rash  men  found  them- 
selves in  a  dilemma,  when  they  were  informed  that  the  article  was  in 
our  treaty  with  France. 

So  eager  were  the  people  of  a  certain  faction  to  condemn  the  whole 
treaty,  that  they  would  not  give  themselves  time  to  be  informed  whether 
it  was  right  or  wrong.  But  when  they  came  to  be  told  that  they  were 
restrained  from  taking  foreign  commissions  to  act  against  a  power  at 
peace  with  the  United  States,  by  the  acknowledged  laws  of  nations,  by 
an  express  statute  of  the  United  States,  and  by  an  article  in  all  our 
other  treaties,  they  began  to  blush  for  their  haste  in  giving  opinions  on 
what  they  did  not  understand.  No  article  in  the  treaty  is  more  requisite 
for  the  peace  of  our  nation,  and  none  more  conformable  to  the  princi- 
ples of  justice  between  governments. 

Vattel  says,  "  A  nation  ought  not  to  suffer  the  citizens  to  do  an  injury 
to  the  subjects  of  another  state,  much  less  to  offend  the  state  itself  If 
you  let  loose  the  reins  of  your  subjects  against  foreign  nations,  these 
will  behave  in  the  same  manner  to  you ;  and  instead  of  that  friendly 
intercourse  which  nature  has  established  between  all  men,  we  should 
see  nothing  but  one  nation  robbing  another." — (Book  ii,  ch.  6.) 

"  I  account  associates  of  an  enemy,  those  who  assist  him  in  his  war 
without  being  obliged  to  it  by  treaty." — (Book  iii,  ch.  6.) 


WITH   GREAT    BRITAIN    IN    1795.  213 

A  nation  is  not  accountable  for  every  act  of  an  individual  citizen ; 
but  if  a  state  or  nation  openly  permits  the  citizens  to  take  part  with  the 
enemies  of  a  third  nation,  that  third  nation  has  a  right  to  consider  that 
state  as  making  a  common  cause  with  its  enemies,  and  to  declare  war 
against  i  of  course.  The  peace  of  neutral  nations  depends  on  the  pro- 
hibitions of  this  article  of  the  treaty. 

It  has  been  objected  to  this  article,  that  it  is  unconstitutional  as  it 
creates  the  crime  of  piracy,  when  the  power  of  defining  piracy  is  vest- 
ed in  Congress.  But  the  act  of  Congress  before  mentioned,  admits  the 
right  of  the  President  and  Senate  to  define  piracy  in  treaties ;  as  the 
ninth  section  enacts,  "  that  nothing  in  the  act  shall  be  construed  to  pre- 
vent the  prosecution  or  punishment  of  treason  or  a  piracy  defined  by  a 
treaty,  or  other  law  of  the  United  States." 

Nothing  marks  the  partiality  of  a  certain  faction  more  distinctly  than 
their  objections  to  this  article.  We  have  had  a  similar  article  in  our 
treaty  with  France  more  than  seventeen  years  ;  and  in  our  treaties 
with  Sweden,  Prussia,  and  the  States  General,  more  than  ten  yeai-s, 
and  not  a  syllable  of  objection  was  lisped  against  the  principle.  People 
did  not  generally  know  that  such  an  article  existed.  But  the  moment  our 
government  treats  Great  Britain  with  the  same  measure  of  justice  as  we 
had  before  observed  toward  other  nations,  our  Jacobins  begin  to  clamor. 

It  is  this  popular  partiality  for  France,  this  disposition  to  favor  every 
thing  French,  at  the  expense  of  every  principle  of  justice  and  equity, 
which  occasions  all  the  difficulty  our  executive  has  encountered  in  pre- 
serving our  peace,  and  in  accommodating  our  differences  with  Great 
Britain.  Nay  more  ;  this  partiality  displayed  on  all  occasions,  and  to 
a  degree  highly  improper  for  a  neutral  nation,  has  been  a  principal 
cause  of  the  abusive  treatment  our  seamen  have  received  from  British 
privateers. 

It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  our  interest  as  a  nation  is  superemi- 
nently concerned  in  preserving  peace.  But  how  can  peace  be  secured 
unless  we  treat  the  powers  at  war  with  impartiality  and  justice  .''  Vat- 
tel  observes,  "  A  neutral  nation  desirous  safely  to  enjoy  the  convenien- 
cies  of  that  state,  is  in  all  things  to  shew  an  exact  impartiality  between 
the  parties  at  war ;  for  should  one  nation  favor  another  to  its  detriment, 
that  nation  can  not  complain  if  the  other  treats  it  as  an  adherent  and 
confederate  of  his  enemy." 

Our  people  have  indeed  a  fine  apology  for  showing  a  preference  to 
France — that  of  favoring  liberty  and  republicanism.  So  far  as  the 
French  fight  for  national  independence  against  the  combined  powers, 
they  are  engaged  in  a  just  and  necessary  war,  and  the  wishes  of  all 
Americans  must  be  with  them.  But  people  who  think  France  has  a 
republican  government,  or  any  other  free  government,  are  egregiously 
mistaken.  Nor  is  there  as  great  a  prospect  of  her  establishing  a  re- 
public, as  there  is  that  she  is  doomed  to  despotism,  or  to  be  split  into  a 
multitude  of  small  factious  democracies  perpetually  at  war  with  each 
other. 

People  are,  therefore,  in  every  view,  unjustifiable  in  aiding  any  of 
the  powers  at  war,  in  a  manner  not  warranted  by  the  laws  of  neutral- 
ity. As  we  value  our  own  government,  and  the  prosperity  of  the 
country,  we  are  to  avoid  every  act  which  can  commit  a  breach  on  our 


214  VINDICATION    OF   THE   TREATY 

public  peace.  It  is  rashness  and  madness  to  combine  our  interest  with 
any  European  power  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  drawn  into  their  polit- 
ical contentions.  The  pretense  of  aiding  the  caxise  of  liberty  is  a  mere 
artifice  to  catch  our  passions.  If  the  nations  of  Europe  can  not  defend 
their  liberties,  we  can  not  be  answerable  for  their  ill  success.  We  aid 
them  best  by  our  peace  and  our  industry. 

The  22d  article  of  the  treaty  stipulates,  that  in  case  of  injuries  or 
damage  on  one  side  or  the  other,  neither  party  will  authorize  reprisals, 
until  a  statement  of  the  same,  verified  by  proof,  shall  be  presented  to 
the  other,  and  satisfaction  demanded.  This  stipulation  is  in  exact  con- 
formity with  the  law  of  nations,  and  is  supported  by  principles  of  policy 
and  justice. 

The  provisions  in  the  23d  article  are  well  adapted  to  advance  the 
intentions  of  the  contracting  parties,  and  are  reciprocally  beneficial. 
The  permission  of  American  vessels  to  enter  prohibited  ports  in  case  of 
distress,  is  a  concession  conformable  to  the  laws  of  hospitality. 

The  objection  to  the  clause  which  enjoins  a  respect  to  be  paid  to  offi- 
cers according  to  their  commissions,  can  be  raised  only  by  men  who 
are  destitute  of  the  civility  which  enjoins  that  respect. 

The  24th  article  prohibits  foreign  privateers  with  commissions,  from 
a  prince  or  state  in  enmity  with  either  nation,  to  arm  or  sell  prizes  in 
the  ports  of  the  parties. 

The  25th  article  makes  it  lawful  for  the  ships  of  war  and  privateers 
of  either  party  to  enter  the  ports  of  the  other,  without  being  liable  to 
be  searched,  seized,  or  detained,  or  to  pay  admiralty  fees. 

These  stipulations  are  also  in  our  treaty  with  France  ;  and  no  well 
grounded  objection  has  been  made  to  them.  Some  superficial  people 
have  supposed  that  they  clash  with  our  treaty  with  France.  But  there 
is  an  express  declaration  that  these  stipulations  shall  not  be  construed  to 
operate  contrary  to  former  existing  treaties.  And  if  no  such  caution 
had  been  taken,  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  could  not  have  operated 
to  the  prejudice  of  France  :  for  it  is  an  express  law  of  nations,  "  That 
a  sovereign  (or  state)  already  bound  by  a  treaty,  can  not  make  others 
contrary  to  the  first.  The  things  about  which  he  has  entered  into  en- 
gagements, are  no  longer  at  his  disposal.  If  it  happens  that  a  posterior 
treaty  is  found,  in  some  point,  to  contradict  one  that  is  more  ancient, 
the  new  treaty  is  null  with  respect  to  that  point.  This  relates  to  trea- 
ties with  different  powers." — (Vattel,  book  ii,  ch.  12,  sec.  165.) 

So  far  the  fears  of  people  are  totally  groundless.  But  the  following 
clause  has  excited  acrimonious  remarks.  "  The  two  parties  agree  that 
while  they  continue  in  amity,  neither  of  them  will  in  future  make  a 
treaty  that  shall  be  inconsistent  with  this  and  the  preceding  article." 
What  can  be  the  objection  to  this  clause  .-*  The  laws  of  nations,  and 
the  rules  of  moral  justice,  forbid  a  state  to  make  a  subsequent  treaty  to 
infringe  a  prior  one.  No  nation  can  do  it.  The  passage  just  quoted 
from  Vattel  is  expressly  to  this  purpose  :  and  the  clause  has  done  noth- 
ing more  than  convert  a  moral  obligation  into  a  contract,  a  law  of  na- 
tions into  a  conventional  law  between  the  parties.  Stipulations  of  this 
kind,  like  statutes  in  affirming  of  common  law,  add  the  sanction  of  a 
positive  contract  to  an  implied  one.  No  new  obligation  is  created ;  an 
agreement  of  this  sort  may  be  considered  as  strengthening  the  old  one. 


WITH    GREAT    BRITAIN    IN    1795.  215 

The  26lh  article  provides,  that  in  case  of  war,  merchants  may  con- 
tinue to  reside  in  the  respective  dominions,  behaving  peaceably — and 
in  case  their  conduct  shall  render  them  suspected,  the  term  of  twelve 
months  is  allowed  to  settle  their  accounts  and  remove  their  families  and 
effects.  This  is  a  favorable  provision,  and  highly  necessary,  between 
countries  so  extensively  connected  in  commerce.  The  term  of  twelve 
months  for  removal,  is  longer  than  is  usually  allowed  ;  the  term  gen- 
erally assigned  in  treaties  is  six  or  nine  months. 

To  the  two  last  articles,  I  presume  no  objections  are  made. 

CURTIUS. 

No.  XI. 

Thus  having  attempted  to  remove  every  objection  of  consequence 
that  has  been  urged  against  the  treaty,  I  will  lay  before  the  public  a 
general  view  of  our  trade  with  the  different  countries  of  Europe,  Asia 
and  the  West  Indies. 

It  has  been  stated  by  the  opposers  of  the  treaty  that  the  commercial 
arrangements  want  reciprocity — that  we  concede  much,  and  gain  noth- 
ing which  we  did  not  before  enjoy. 

With  respect  to  the  inland  trade  to  Canada,  the  converse  of  the  pro- 
position is  the  truth.  The  United  States  gain  a  free  trade  to  Canada, 
on  equal  terms  with  British  subjects,  which  we  did  not  before  enjoy. 
British  subjects  gain  little  or  nothing  by  the  stipulation,  which  they  did 
not  before  enjoy.  In  this  part  of  the  treaty,  the  advantage  is  on  the 
side  of  the  United  States. 

With  respect  to  our  foreign  commerce,  it  depends  on  the  will  of  na- 
tions over  whom  we  have  no  control.  All  nations  claim  the  right  of 
admitting  ships  and  goods  into  their  ports,  or  prohibiting  them  at  plea- 
sure ;  or  of  burdening  our  commerce  with  heavy  duties.  This  right  is 
absolute,  and  when  we  obtain  any  privilege  in  their  trade,  it  is  by  way 
of  grant  or  concession.  The  United  States  have  the  same  right  as  to 
their  own  ports ;  but  they  have  not  seen  fit  to  exclude  the  ships  of  any 
nation  from  a  free  participation  of  their  trade. 

The  maritime  powers  of  Europe  find  a  navy  so  necessary  to  their 
safety,  amidst  the  contending  interests  of  the  different  nations,  that 
every  measure  is  taken  to  multiply  their  seamen,  and  increase  their 
shipping.  Great  Britain  is  the  nation  most  interested  in  this  system. 
From  her  insular  situation,  a  navy  is  her  only  defense — to  man  a  navy, 
she  must  raise  seamen — to  secure  a  supply  of  seamen  she  must  extend 
her  commerce  and  her  carrying  trade  as  far  as  possible. 

In  pursuance  of  this  system  of  defense,  originated  her  navigation  act, 
in  1660,  which  restricts  her  trade  to  British  vessels,  and  manned  mostly 
with  British  seamen.  That  act  has  been  in  operation  from  its  first 
passing  to  the  present  day ;  and  to  prevent  temporary  or  local  incon- 
veniences, from  a  rigid  execution,  the  parliament  have  empowered  the 
king  and  council  to  dispense  with  it  on  occasion,  and  open  the  ports  of 
Great  Britain,  or  her  colonies,  at  such  times  and  to  such  nations,  as  ne- 
cessities may  require. 

All  the  nations  of  Europe  have  laws  respecting  their  trade,  which 
operate  more  or  less  to  encourage  their  own  commerce,  and  lay  that  of 
their  neighbors  to  their  own  dominions  under  restrictions. 


^BHM  VINDICATION    OF   THE    TREATY 

A  view  of  the  privileges  and  restrictions  of  commerce,  was  offered 
to  Congress,  Dec.  16,  1793,  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  which,  though  not  suffi- 
ciently correct  or  comprehensive,  throws  much  light  on  the  subject. 
These  general  facts  will  be  sufficient  for  my  purpose  in  this  place. 

The  admission  of  our  vessels  into  the  British  dominions  in  Europe, 
rests  now  on  an  annual  proclamation  of  the  king  and  council.  Although 
interest  and  expedience  may  operate  to  continue  the  privilege  of  enter- 
ing those  ports  at  all  times,  and  with  vessels  of  any  burden,  yet  the 
tenure  of  the  privilege  is  precarious. 

By  the  pi'esent  treaty,  this  precarious  privilege  becomes  a  right, 
which  can  not  be  abridged  by  the  executive  of  the  English  nation. 
This  is  an  advantage  ;  and  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  his  report,  admits  it  to  be 
such.  It  was  an  objection  he  urged  against  our  former  state  of  com- 
merce to  Great  Britain,  that  it  was  precarious.  That  objection  by  the 
treaty  is  removed. 

With  respect  to  her  colonial  possessions.  Great  Britain  has  observed 
the  jealous  policy  common  to  all  the  nations  of  Europe.  The  ships  of 
all  nations  are  excluded  from  her  colonies,  unless  it  may  be  a  port  in 
the  West  Indies,  where  the  Spaniards  are  permitted  to  enter  with  log- 
wood. 

In  opening  her  West  Indies  to  American  vessels  of  seventy  tuns  bur- 
den, and  her  East  India  ports  to  American  vessels  of  any  burden,  she 
has  conceded  a  privilege,  which  she  grants  to  no  other  nation  on  earth. 
The  sacrifice  of  the  carrying  trade  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  to 
obtain  admission  into  the  English  West  Indies,  is  deemed  more  than 
equivalent,  and  that  stipulation  will  fall  to  the  ground.  But  the  direct 
trade  to  the  British  East  Indies,  is  generally  admitted  to  be  highly  ben- 
eficial. 

Let  us  contrast  these  advantages  in  trade  with  those  we  enjoy  with 
other  nations. 

Our  navigation  to  Spain  and  Portugal  is  free  :  but  many  of  our  ex- 
ports are  prohibited,  as  tobacco,  and  rice  and  whale  oils  to  Portugal. 
The  American  trade,  however,  to  Spain  and  Portugal  is  highly  advan- 
tageous in  a  number  of  articles.  But  both  these  countries  prohibit  all 
intercourse  with  their  colonial  possessions.  The  ports  of  Sweden  and 
Denmark  are  open ;  but  the  duties  paid  on  most  of  the  American  pro- 
ductions amount  to  a  prohibition. 

Our  navigation  to  the  United  Netherlands  is  free  ;  but  some  of  the 
most  material  articles  of  our  country,  as  beef,  pork  and  bread-stuff,  are 
prohibited,  as  well  as  by  Great  Britain.  We  can  have  no  intercourse 
with  their  possessions  in  the  East  Indies. 

France,  before  the  war,  guarantied  to  the  United  States  one  or  more 
free  ports  in  Europe,  and  such  ports  in  the  West  Indies  as  were  free. 
In  general,  her  West  Indies  were  open  by  an  arret  of  the  king.  Even 
the  coasting  trade  in  France  was  principally  carried  on  by  foreign 
vessels. 

The  revolution  has  sensibly  varied  the  whole  scene  of  commerce. 
Necessity  has  opened  all  French  ports  to  neutral  nations.  But  a  navi- 
gation act,  similar  to  that  of  Great  Britain,  was  decreed  September  2, 
1793,  to  take  place  January  1,  1794.  This,  with  a  long  spirited  report 
of  Barrere,  was  transmitted  to  Congress,  and  published  by  their  order 


WITH  GKEAT  BRITAIN  IN  1795.  217 

in  February,  1794.  This  act  is  suspended  only  on  account  of  the  ne- 
cessities of  France,  her  commerce  being  wholly  dependent  on  neutral 
bottoms.  The  moment  this  act  shall  take  place,  we  shall  be  cut  off 
from  all  right  to  the  trade  of  France,  except  what  is  guarantied  by 
treaty,  that  is,  one  or  more  free  jwrts  ;  and  such  privileges  as  we  shall 
be  able  to  obtain  by  future  stipulations.     The  decree  is  in  these  words  : 

Act  of  Navigation,  of  the  French  Republic. 

The  National  Convention,  after  having  heard  the  report  of  their  com- 
mittees of  marine,  of  commerce,  and  of  public  safety,  considering  that 
the  French  nation  has  the  incontestible  right  of  securing  by  every  meth- 
od, the  prosperity  of  her  agriculture,  commerce  and  industry  ;  that  noth- 
ing has  a  more  direct  tendency  to  this  end  than  a  navigation  act ;  and 
that  in  the  solemn  declaration  of  this  act  she  only  makes  use  of  the  same 
right  which  she  acknowledges  to  belong  to  all  other  nations,  decrees  as 
follows ; 

Art.  1.  That  no  foreign  commodities,  productions  or  merchandise, 
shall  be  imported  but  directly  by  French  vessels,  or  those  belonging  to 
the  inhabitants  of  the  country  of  which  they  are  the  growth,  produce  or 
manufacture,  or  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  country  of  the  ordinary  ports 
of  sale  and  first  exportation;  the  officers  and  three  fourths  of  the  crew 
of  a  foreign  vessel  being  of  the  country  whose  flag  the  vessel  bears ; 
the  whole  on  pain  of  confiscation  of  the  vessel  and  cargo,  and  a  fine  of 
three  thousand  livres,  jointly  and  severally  against  the  owners,  consign- 
ees, and  agents  of  the  vessel  and  cargo,  the  captain  and  lieutenant  of 
the  vessel. 

2.  That  foreign  vessels  shall  not  transport  from  one  French  port  to 
another  French  port,  any  commodities,  productions  or  merchandises  of 
the  growth,  produce  or  manufactures  of  France,  the  colonies  or  posses- 
sions of  France,  under  the  penalties  declared  in  article  1st. 

3.  That  after  the  10th  of  August  next,  no  vessel  shall  be  reputed 
French,  nor  enjoy  the  privileges  of  a  French  vessel,  unless  such  vessel 
shall  have  been  built  in  the  colonies  or  possessions  of  France,  or  declar- 
ed a  good  prize  taken  from  an  enemy,  or  confiscated  for  contravention 
of  the  laws  of  France,  and  unless  the  officers  and  three  fourths  oi  the 
crew  are  Frenchmen. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  demonstrated  that  no  country  on  earth  yields  more 
extensive  privileges  to  the  American  merchant,  than  Great  Britain.  It 
is  also  equally  demonstrable  that  Great  Britain  yields  more  privileges 
in  her  trade  with  the  United  States  than  she  grants  to  any  other  nation. 

It  has  been  objected  to  several  articles  of  the  treaty,  that  they  are  not 
reciprocal.,  because  from  the  circumstances  o(  the  two  countries,  British 
subjects  will  be  principally  benefited.  Thus  the  9th  and  10th  articles 
are  said  to  yield  advantages  to  Great  Britain,  without  an  equivalent,  be- 
cause her  subjects  hold  large  tracts  of  land  in  the  United  States,  and 
have  debts  due  them  to  a  great  amount :  whereas  American  subjects 
hold  little  or  no  land,  and  have  no  debts  or  moneys,  in  Great  Britain. 

Objections  of  this  kind  must  proceed  from  a  peevish  captious  disposi- 
tion. It  may  just  as  well  be  objected,  that  we  should  have  no  trade  with 
Great  Britain  at  all,  because  her  exports  to  this  country  exceed  her  im- 

28 


218  VINDICATION    OF    THE    TREATY  , 

ports  from  it — or  because  her  dominions  contain  double  the  number  of 
people,  that  are  in  the  United  States.  Nay,  it  may  just  as  well  be 
said  that  every  man  has  not  an  equal  right,  to  a  highway,  because  some 
use  the  highway  ten  times  as  much  as  others. 

In  all  conventions  between  states,  an  equality  in  principle  constitutes 
an  equivalent.  If  an  article  of  any  treaty  gives  to  both  parties  a  right 
of  doing  the  same  things,  and  under  the  same  advantages,  that  article  is 
reciprocal,  though  one  of  the  parties  never  makes  use  of  the  right. 

Thus  in  our  treaty  with  France,  we  permit  French  armed  vessels  to 
bring  their  prizes  into  the  ports  of  the  United  States.  The  French  also 
permit  the  American  vessels  to  carry  their  prizes  into  French  ports. 
The  French  are  in  a  condition  to  use  the  privilege  and  do  use  it  every 
day.  We  are  not  at  war,  and  do  not  use  the  privilege.  But  will  any 
man  say,  that  article  of  the  treaty  is  not  mutual  ?  Will  any  man  deny 
that  we  have  an  equivalent  for  the  right  conceded  to  France?  Just 
so  with  respect  to  our  commerce  with  England  or  any  other  power. 
Suppose  a  nation  to  have  but  a  single  port  for  shipping  and  commerce, 
and  the  United  States  to  have  a  thousand.  Each  party  agrees  to  open 
all  their  ports,  and  admit  the  other  to  a  free  trade  ;  will  it  be  denied 
that  this  is  reciprocal  ?  Certainly  not.  It  is  equality  in  the  principle, 
not  in  the  amount  or  extent  of  its  operation,  which  constitutes  reciprocity. 
If  people  are  disposed  to  cavil  at  inequalities  of  condition,  as  well  as 
of  principle,  they  may  find  as  many  causes  of  discontent,  in  all  other 
treaties,  as  in  this  with  Great  Britain. 

The  truth  is,  when  our  other  treaties  were  formed,  Americans  had 
confidence  in  the  constituted  authorities  of  our  country.  They  believed 
men,  who  had  made  commerce,  treaties,  and  the  laws  of  nations,  a  study 
and  matter  of  contemplation,  were  best  capable  of  negotiating  treaties. 
They  trusted  to  the  men  appointed  for  this  purpose.  The  great  mass 
of  people  are  not  competent  to  decide  what  is,  or  is  not  for  our  pub- 
lic interests,  in  complicated  negotiations  and  national  compacts ;  and 
unless  they  repose  confidence  in  public  characters,  we  shall  forever  be 
embroiled  with  factions.  Cuktius. 

No.  XU. 

Having  in  the  preceding  papers,  answered  such  objections  to  the 
treaty,  as  appear  to  have  any  weight,  I  will  close  this  vindication,  by 
addressing  to  my  fellow  citizens,  some  considerations  of  a  more  gen- 
eral nature. 

It  was  the  public  opinion  the  last  year,  and  it  is  an  opinion  still  main- 
tained among  one  description  of  Americans,  that  Great  Britain  has  been 
so  humbled  by  France,  that  she  will  consent  to  make  great  sacrifices 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  peace  and  commerce  with  this  country.  It 
is  also  believed  by  many  people,  that  the  kingdom  is  upon  the  point  of 
an  internal  revolution :  and  that  holding  in  our  hands  the  power  of  se- 
questrating the  debts  of  her  citizens,  we  may  command,  at  all  times, 
peace  and  favorable  treatment.  All  these  opinions,  though  unquestion- 
ably erroneous,  have  contributed  to  raise  the  public  expectation,  re- 
specting the  success  of  the  treaty,  to  an  unwarrantable  pitch. 

With  respect  to  the  humble  condition  of  Great  Britain,  where  are  the 
proofs  ?  That  her  land  forces  were  defeated  and  cut  to  pieces,  the  last 
campaign,  is  undeniable  ;  and  there  is  no  question  that  any  combat  by 


WITH    GREAT    BRITAIN    IN    1795.  219 

land,  would  be  decided  in  favor  of  France.  The  numbers,  the  disci- 
pline, and  the  enthusiasm  of  the  French  forces  on  land  render  them 
irresistible.  But  the  best  troops  and  the  best  discipline,  without  other 
resources,  will  not  maintain  the  greatness  of  a  state  or  kingdom,  for  any 
length  of  time. 

France  now  supports  her  armies  mostly  upon  her  conquered  coun- 
tries. Her  finances  are  exhausted  ;  and  what  is,  if  possible,  a  more 
serious  calamity,  her  internal  dissensions  debilitate  her  force,  distract 
her  councils,  and  disconcert  her  operations. 

The  plan  of  Robespierre  was  a  system  of  despair.  By  putting  every 
thing  in  requisition,  the  pei'sons  of  men,  their  goods,  provisions,  and 
money,  the  whole  force  of  France  was  collected  to  a  point,  and  the 
whole  energy  of  that  force  was  exerted  to  defeat  the  most  formidable 
combination  ever  raised  against  the  independence  of  a  nation. 

This  measure  was  perhaps  indispensable  in  the  crisis  when  it  was 
adopted.  But  unfortunately  violent  exertions  in  the  body  politic,  as 
well  as  in  the  human  body,  are  ever  followed  by  debility  and  languor. 
The  system  of  requisitions  and  the  maximum,  were  calculated  to  de- 
stroy the  capital  of  a  country,  which,  in  all  cases,  ought  to  be  left  un- 
touched, as  a  source  of  further  productions.  The  interest  or  income 
only  of  a  country  can  be  safely  used  for  national  purposes  ;  and  when 
a  state  is  compelled  to  seize  the  capital  stock,  though  its  exertions  may 
be  great,  they  must  certainly  be  of  short  duration. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  calamity  incurred  by  the  system  of  terror. 
To  enforce  such  an  arbitrary  system,  recourse  must  be  had  to  violent 
punishment  for  refusals  to  comply  with  it ;  and  the  summary  mode  of 
condemning,  as  well  as  the  sanguinary  process  of  executing,  tend  to 
excite  all  the  malicious  and  revengeful  passions  of  men.  The  guillotin 
of  France  has  left  every  deadly  and  rancorous  passion,  waiting  only 
for  a  favorable  moment  for  vengeance.  The  surviving  friends  of  those 
who  fell  victims  to  the  system  of  terror,  will  not  easily  forget  or  forgive 
the  injuries  they  suffered  ;  and  thus  that  terrible  despotism,  which  for  a 
few  months  compelled  all  men  to  unite  to  defeat  foreign  foes  and  to 
crush  internal  insurrections ;  that  system  has  spread  over  France  the 
seeds  of  faction  and  dissension,  which  will  afflict  the  country  and  weaken 
all  its  exertions  for  at  least  a  generation  to  come.  Thus  the  last  season, 
the  victories  of  France  by  land,  astonished  all  nations,  and  spread  dis- 
may through  Europe,  while  her  frigates  scoured  the  ocean,  and  marred 
the  commerce  of  her  enemies.  But  the  present  season,  her  armies  and 
her  fleet  are  inactive,  her  resources  fail,  and  all  is  debility  and  languor. 

Great  Britain,  on  the  other  hand,  though  her  army  was  destroyed  in 
the  Netherlands,  retains  all  her  activity  and  resources.  Her  territories 
■'have  not  been  the  seat  of  war  ;  her  land  has  been  under  full  cultiva- 
tion, her  manufactures  have  been  carried  on  as  usual,  her  goods  are 
exported  nearly  as  cheap,  and  in  nearly  the  same  quantities,  as  in  time 
of  peace  ;  her  government  retains  its  vigor,  and  her  fleet,  notwithstand- 
ing a  scarcity  of  seamen,  still  rides  mistress  of  the  ocean.  The  com- 
merce of  Great  Britain,  though  a  little  impaired,  still  exceeds  that  of 
any  other  country ;  and  the  government  has  not  been  compelled  to  dis- 
'tress  her  trade  to  man  her  navy.  Were  there  a  pressing  necessity  for 
<B0  violent  a  step,  that  country,  by  stripping  her  merchantmen  for  a  time, 
would  bring  upon  the  ocean  a  fleet  superior  to  any  that  has  ever  ap- 


220  VINDICATION    OF    THE    TREATY 

peared  under  one  command.  But  Great  Britain  has  not  yet  been  com- 
pelled to  adopt  this  ruinous  expedient ;  she  has  not  materially  impaired 
her  commerce  by  impressing  seamen — she  has  not  entrenched  upon 
the  capital  stock  of  her  husbandmen  and  manufacturers.  Her  debt 
has  indeed  been  augmented ;  but  still  immense  sums  of  money  are  of- 
fered, and  the  only  question  with  government  is,  whose  money  shall  be 
received  on  loan,  for  the  competitors  are  numerous.  Such  is  the  mon- 
eyed capital  of  that  country,  and  such  the  resources,  that  Great  Britain 
will  probably  be  able  to  carry  on  the  war  longer  than  any  other  power. 

Nor  is  the  idea  of  an  approaching  revolution  well  founded.  Ireland 
may  perhaps  give  trouble  ;  but  the  government  of  England  has  seldom 
ever  been  supported  by  a  more  numerous  and  powerful  majority  of  the 
people.  The  private  associations  in  England  and  Scotland,  gave  some 
uneasiness  for  a  time  ;  but  the  moment  government  called  for  a  suspen- 
sion of  the  habeas  corpus  act,  it  was  granted,  and  the  executive  dissi- 
pated all  private  societies,  with  their  plans  of  revolution.  The  ease 
with  which  this  whole  business  was  conducted,  certainly  does  not  mark 
either  fear  or  weakness  in  the  administration  of  the  government  of 
Great  Britain. 

Where,  then,  is  the  ground  for  supposing  Great  Britain  in  a  distress- 
ed state  of  humiliation,  compelling  her  to  make  sacrifices  to  the  United 
States  .'*  On  the  contrary,  Great  Britain  at  this  moment,  maintains  as 
commanding  an  attitude  among  the  powers  of  the  earth  as  at  any  for- 
mer period.  All  the  hopes  of  Americans,  founded  on  an  opinion  of 
the  depressed  state  of  that  nation,  are  wholly  delusory.  Nor  can  we 
expect  any  thing  from  the  generosity  or  good  will  of  the  British  or  any 
other  nation.  National  generosity  is  a  mere  phantom  of  the  imagina- 
tion. It  is  to  the  interest,  or,  at  most,  to  the  justice  of  a  nation  wc  must 
address  ourselves ;  and  no  nation  will  make  concessions  beyond  what 
these  require.  We  are  not  in  a  situation  to  command  any  foreign  na- 
tion, to  enforce  our  claims,  or  to  compel  the  exercise  of  justice. 

If  our  sanguine  enthusiasts  are  mistaken  totally  as  to  the  present 
power  of  Great  Britain,  they  are  equally  so  as  to  the  force  and  effect 
of  sequestration.  The  injustice  of  attacking  private  debts  for  national 
wrongs,  is  generally  admitted ;  but  many  people  contend  that  it  may 
be  necessary  at  times  to  resort  to  this  measure,  as  the  only  effectual 
weapon  in  our  power  to  terrify  Great  Britain,  a  perfidious  nation,  into 
a  sense  of  justice. 

It  is  surprising  how  such  reasoners  mistake  the  real  and  certain  ef- 
fects of  such  a  step.  Any  man  who  will  give  himself  time  to  reflect 
on  the  pride  of  nations,  and  especially  of  the  English  nation,  must  be 
convinced  that  the  use  of  this  weapon,  instead  of  inducing  concessions 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  would  excite  every  hostile  feeling,  not 
only  in  the  government,  but  in  the  very  creditors  whose  debts  should 
be  sequestered.  Such  a  violation  of  all  good  faith,  such  an  attack  upon 
commercial  confidence,  as  the  sequestration  of  private  debts  to  avenge 
national  injuries,  would  put  it  out  of  our  power  to  accommodate  differ- 
ences but  by  the  sword.  It  would  provoke  a  war  of  double  fury  ;  and 
the  very  man  whose  debts  should  be  detained,  would  be  the  first  to  en- 
courage and  the  last  to  abandon  the  contest. 

All  the  high  raised  expectations  of  our  citizens  of  obtaining  from 
Great  pritaiq  ui  Jae?  present  state,  humiliating  concessions  which  her 


WITH    GREAT    BRITAIN    IN    1795.  221 

pride  would  forbid  her  to  yield  in  time  of  peace,  are  supported  by  not 
one  circumstance  of  rational  probability.  People  who  dwell  on  such 
prospects  of  success  are  grossly  deceived,  both  as  to  facts,  and  as  to  the 
character  of  the  English  nation. 

But  Judge  Rutledge  of  South  Carolina,  has,  on  this  subject,  uttered 
the  silliest  expressions  that  ever  fell  from  human  lips.  "  England," 
says  he,  "is  hoping  for  peace  on  whatever  terms  France  may  grant  it: 
she  is  reduced  to  the  last  gasp,  and  were  America  to  seize  her  by  the 
throat,  she  would  expire  in  agonies  at  her  feet." 

A  man  must  be  little  less  than  insane,  to  utter  such  absurd  ideas, 
especially  at  a  moment  when  Great  Britain  possesses  more  actual  re- 
sources, the  sinews  of  war,  than  all  the  other  powei's  at  war,  even 
France  included.  And  no  man  but  an  insolvent  debtor,  who  hates  his 
creditor,  because  he  has  injured  him,  would  wish  to  see  a  great  agri- 
cultural, manufacturing,  and  commercial  nation  expiring  in  agonies. 
Whatever  be  the  injuries  Great  Britain  has  done  this  country,  it  is  not 
for  the  interest  of  mankind,  that  she  should  be  blotted  out  of  existence. 
In  no  country  on  earth  do  the  American  merchants  find  more  good  faith, 
fair  dealing,  and  convenient  credit,  than  among  British  merchants — no 
creditors  are  more  indulgent  to  debtors  than  the  British — and  no  coun- 
try on  earth  finds  extensive  credit  more  useful  than  the  United  States. 

Whatever  be  the  resentments  of  our  citizens  toward  Great  Britain, 
they  may  rest  assured  of  one  fact,  and  it  is  of  no  small  moment  to  some 
of  the  United  States,  that  the  treatment  Americans  will  receive  from 
that  country  will  be  more  friendly,  when  the  conduct  of  American  debt- 
ors is  more  jicst. 

Another  objection  to  the  treaty,  or  to  any  treaty  with  Great  Britain, 
is,  that  it  begets  an  unnatural  alliance  between  a  monarchy  and  a  repub- 
lic. This  is  clearly  the  most  trifling  objection  ever  offered,  and  is  be- 
neath a  serious  answer.  And  those  who  make  it,  ought  to  blush  at  their 
inconsistency,  especially  as  these  very  men  are  rejoicing  at  the  late  trea- 
ty between  France  and  the  monarch  of  Prussia,  and  earnestly  expect- 
ing eveiy  day,  to  hear  of  a  treaty  between  France  and  Spain. 

On  the  whole,  let  me  ask  my  fellow  citizens  what  sacrifices  we  may 
make  by  the  treaty  ?  We  have  old  inveterate  disputes  with  Great  Brit- 
ain, which  must  be  terminated.  War  or  accommodation  are  the  alter- 
natives. If  we  wish  a  war,  we  waste  the  blood  and  treasure  of  America, 
without  an  object ;  for  at  the  close  of  the  war,  the  old  disputes  will  re- 
main, and  new  ones  be  originated.  Instead  of  bettering  our  condition, 
we  render  it  infinitely  worse  by  hostilities. 

Is  it  not  wise,  therefore,  to  compromise  these  differences .''  And 
though  considerable  time  and  expense,  perhaps  some  sacrifices  of  just 
claims,  should  be  incurred  on  our  part,  yet  between  these  evils,  and  the 
continuance  of  inveterate  enmity  and  hostile  views,  on  which  side  does 
the  balance  lie  ?  Every  reflecting  man  must  say,  07i  the  side  of  accom- 
modation and  peace. 

The  commercial  part  of  the  treaty  is  of  a  temporary  nature ;  and 
even  if  some  sacrifices  were  to  be  made,  these  will  not  come  in  compe- 
tition with  the  other  great  and  important  objects  of  the  treaty.  But  it  is 
not  true  that  any  material  sacrifice  is  made  in  the  commercial  part  of 
this  compact.  We  do  not  cede  one  material  privilege  which  Great  Brit- 
ain does  not  enjoy  by  the  laws  of  nations  or  the  laws  of  the   United 


222  VINDICATION    OF    THE    TREATY 

States.  I  am  bold  in  the  assertion,  and  call  on  my  opposers  to  name 
the  part  in  which  such  sacrifice  is  made.  On  the  other  hand  some  ma- 
terial  concessions  on  tlie  part  of  Great  Britain,  are  made  to  the  United 
States  by  the  treaty. 

It  is  said.  Great  Britain  may  enter  with  her  ships  into  all  the  ports  of 
the  United  States.  True ;  but  she  enjoys  that  privilege  without  this 
treaty.  She  gains  nothing  in  this  respect  except  that  she  changes  a 
precarious  privilege  for  a  right ;  just  as  we  do,  in  the  trade  to  the  Brit- 
ish European  dominions. 

It  is  said,  we  bind  ourselves  not  to  increase  the  duties  on  British  tun- 
nage  and  goods  imported  in  her  ships  beyond  what  we  lay  on  those  of 
other  nations.  True  ;  we  agree  on  this  head,  to  treat  Great  Britain  as 
well  as  the  most  favored  nation.  If  this  is  a  concession  on  our  part,  it 
can  not  be  a  material  sacrifice^  for  we  have  an  equivalent  in  this,  that 
Great  Britain  stipulates  the  same  thing  to  the  United  States. 

It  is  said,  we  cede  to  Great  Britain  the  right  of  increasing  duties  on 
our  tunnage  to  equal  our  present  duties  on  hers  and  on  goods  imported 
in  British  bottoms.  Nothing  can  be  more  puerile  than  such  an  allega- 
tion. In  this  respect  we  cede  nothing.  Great  Britain  had  that  right 
before  the  treaty ;  and  her  right  is  precisely  the  same  as  before. 

It  has  been  said,  we  cede  to  Great  Britain  the  right  of  seizing  our  ves- 
sels and  taking  the  enemy's  property ;  and  that  we  have  made  naval 
stores  and  provisions  contraband  by  treaty.  These  charges  have  been 
proved  not  true.  Great  Britain  enjoys  these  rights  by  the  law  of  nations^ 
independent  of  all  treaties. 

We  have  therefore  made  very  few  sacrifices  in  this  part  of  the  treaty  ; 
but  we  have  gained  something.  We  have  obtained  a  permanence  of 
trade  to  Great  Britain.  We  have  gained  a  free  trade  to  Canada  and  the 
British  East  Indies,  without  any  considerable  concessions,  and  what  is 
more,  we  have  preserved  the  blessings  of  peace. 

Why  then,  my  fellow  citizens,  will  you  not  leave  the  management  of 
this  treaty  where  the  constitution  has  placed  it }  What  ground  have 
you  to  suppose,  that  the  President,  our  late  envoy  and  the  majority  of 
the  Senate,  have,  in  a  moment  and  on  this  single  occasion,  deserted  the 
interest  of  our  country .''  What  reason  have  you  to  believe  that  old 
tried  patriots  have  renounced  the  uniform  principles  of  their  lives,  and 
turned  apostates  ?  Is  there  a  shadow  of  reason  to  believe,  that  men 
grown  gray  in  the  service  of  their  country,  whose  patriotism  and  virtue 
were  never  suspected,  have  now  in  the  evening  of  life,  and  at  the  close 
of  all  their  active  public  scenes,  commenced  traitors  ?  You  can  not 
believe  insinuations  of  this  kind.  The  suggestion  of  British  gold  and 
undue  influence,  is  the  work  of  dark  malicious  hearts,  detested  by  all 
good  men,  and  discredited  by  the  very  children  in  the  streets. 

No,  my  countrymen,  you  have  been  deceived.  'Your  passions  have 
been  taken  by  surprise ;  you  have  been  precipitated  into  rash  opinions, 
and  violent  measures,  by  a  set  of  men  who  are  the  foes  of  our  present 
free  and  happy  government  and  its  administration.  You  may  be  assur- 
ed, there  is  a  confederation  of  characters,  from  New  Hampshire  to 
Georgia,  arrayed  in  opposition,  either  to  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  to  its  administration,  or  to  particular  men  in  office.  The  opposi- 
tion of  the  principal  men  in  this  confederacy  can  be  traced  to  some 
known  causes,  originally  of  a  personal  nature.     Disappointment  in  ap- 


WITH  GREAT  BRITAIN  IN  1795.  223 

plication  for  some  office,  or  the  failure  of  some  favorite  scheme  in  their 
political  system,  has  converted  many  of  the  friends  of  our  late  revolution, 
into  determined  opposers  of  the  general  system  of  the  present  adminis- 
tration. These  men  will  never  be  contented  till  they  can  displace  the 
present  officers  of  government,  and  introduce  themselves,  their  friends, 
and  their  measures,  into  our  councils.  You  may  rest  assured,  that  most 
of  the  ferment  raised  against  the  treaty,  originated  with  men  of  this 
description. 

This  confederacy  was  formed  and  is  still  maintained  and  strengthen- 
ed, by  spreading  jealousies  and  suspicions  among  the  people,  who  though 
honest  in  their  views,  are  very  liable  to  be  misled  by  artful  men.  One 
of  the  most  successful  weapons  ever  wielded  by  this  coalition  of  disap- 
pointed men,  is  furnished  them  by  the  present  war  in  Europe.  The 
combination  of  powers  against  France,  which  we  all  reprobate,  is  said 
to  be  a  combination  against  liberty  in  general^  and  if  France  should 
fail  of  success,  it  is  said  we  shall  be  the  next  object  of  attack. 

This  is  a  mere  suggestion  of  our  restless  men,  to  alarm  your  fears, 
and  drive  you,  if  possible,  from  your  neutral  ground  into  hostilities. 
The  suggestion  was  first  made  by  the  late  French  minister,  whose  mis- 
sion to  this  country  was  for  the  express  purpose  of  flattering,  intriguing, 
or  forcing  you  into  the  war.  His  instructions  are  clear  and  explicit  on 
this  point. 

That  minister  was  displaced,  and  his  views  counteracted  by  the  firm- 
ness of  our  President,  seconded  by  the  northern  states.  But  the  party 
which  originally  rallied  under  that  man,  still  exists,  and  forms  a  league, 
co-extensive  with  the  United  States,  connected  in  all  its  parts  and  acting 
by  a  single  impulse. 

Thus,  in  the  infancy  of  our  empire,  the  bane  of  all  republics  is  al- 
ready diffiised  over  our  country,  and  poisons  the  whole  body  politic. 
Faction  is  a  disease  which  has  proved  fatal  to  all  popular  governments ; 
but  in  America  it  has  assumed  an  aspect  more  formidable  than  in  any 
other  country.  In  ancient  republics,  popular  commotions  were  sudden 
things,  excited  by  the  emergencies  of  the  moment,  bursting  instantly  on 
the  existing  government,  producing  a  revolution,  banishing  a  tyrant  who 
was  powerful,  or  a  patriot  who  was  popular,  and  an  object  of  jealousy 
to  some  ambitious  competitor. 

But  in  America,  faction  has  assumed  consistency  and  system — it  is  a 
conspiracy  perpetually  existing — an  opposition  organized  and  disci- 
plined, for  the  purposes  of  defeating  the  regular  exercise  of  the  con- 
stitutional powers  of  our  government,  whenever  a  measure  does  not 
please  the  secret  leaders  of  the  confederacy. 

My  countrymen,  be  watchful  of  the  progress  of  the  associations, 
formed  on  the  plan  of  the  Jacobin  society  in  France.  That  society 
was  a  powerful  instrument  in  the  work  of  demolishing  the  monarchy ; 
but  on  the  ruins  of  monarchy,  it  raised  the  most  frightful  despotism 
recorded  in  history.  Leagued  with  sister  societies  in  every  village  and 
city  of  France,  the  Jacobins  governed  the  Convention,  Paris  and  all 
France  for  a  long  time,  and  filled  it  with  blood,  confiscation  and  ruin. 
So  terrible  was  the  tyranny  of  these  associations,  that  the  Convention 
were  compelled  to  prohibit  their  meetings ;  but  so  numerous  are  the 
members,  and  so  active  the  spirit  of  revenge,  that  two  or  three  insur- 


224  VINDICATION    OF    THE    TREATY,    &C. 

rections  have  been  raised  by  the  Jacobins  in  Paris,  blood  has  been  shed 
in  various  parts  by  that  faction,  they  have  been  in  possession  of  Toulon, 
a  civil  war  is  often  excited,  and  it  seems  yet  doubtful  whether  the 
national  representatives,  or  private  unauthorized  clubs  shall  govern 
France. 

My  countrymen,  you  are  threatened  with  a  similar  evil.  Under  the 
pretended  mask  of  patriotism  and  watching  over  our  liberties,  private 
associations  are  formed  and  extending  their  influence  over  our  country. 
The  popular  societies  of  France  did  the  same.  The  cry  of  patriotism 
was  forever  on  their  tongue  ;  but  when  they  became  strong  enough, 
they  ruled  with  a  rod  of  iron.  Fii'e,  sword  and  the  guillotin  were  in- 
struments of  their  administration. 

Be  not  deceived  into  a  belief  that  our  citizens  are  incapable  of  similar 
outrages.  Violent  men  may  be  found  in  every  country,  and  already 
are  the  heads  of  our  government  denounced  as  traitors ;  already  is  our 
country  threatened  with  blood  and  civil  war.  If  men  who  regard  their 
rights,  and  who  believe  the  constitution  and  laws  alone  to  be  the  guar- 
anty of  those  rights,  do  not  unite  and  show  a  formidable  countenance 
against  all  irregular  opposition  to  those  laws,  our  whole  country  will 
be  speedily  subject  to  a  confederacy  of  men,  a  small  minority  indeed, 
but  bold,  though  secret  in  their  machinations,  indefatigable  in  their 
measures,  and  determined  on  success. 

It  is  not  the  treaty  alone  which  is  opposed  ;  this  is  a  convenient  in- 
strument for  them  to  wield  ;  but  the  causes  of  opposition  lie  deeper. 
The  treaty  is  not  altogether  satisfactory ;  but  if  carried  into  effect,  it 
will  not  be  followed  with  any  dangerous  consequences,  except  what 
will  be  created  by  its  opposers.  If  left  to  go  peaceably  into  operation, 
it  would  have  no  general  effect  on  business  which  people  at  large  could 
feel — agriculture  would  still  flourish  ;  trade  would  be  carried  on  as 
usual  with  little  variation  ;  national  disputes  would  be  in  a  train  of  ad- 
justment, and  peace  and  tranquillity  would  reign  throughout  our  happy 
land.  But  if  the  opposers  of  the  treaty  can  possibly  embroil  our  coun- 
try in  civil  war,  it  will  be  effected.  From  such  a  frightful  calamity, 
may  your  good  sense,  my  fellow  citizens,  preserve  us  ! 

Should  the  treaty  not  be  ratified,  and  should  the  consequences  be 
foreign  war,  the  people,  not  the  government  of  America,  must  be  an- 
swerable for  all  its  melancholy  consequences. 

No  period  of  our  political  life  has  been  more  critical,  or  deserving 
of  more  temper  on  the  part  of  the  people,  and  of  more  prudence  and 
firmness  on  the  part  of  our  executive. 

One  party  wishes  to  draw  closer  our  alliance  with  France,  even  at 
the  hazard  of  war  with  all  the  world.  Our  government  and  its  sup- 
porters wish  for  perfect  neutrality  toward  all  the  powers  at  war — they 
wish  for  strict  justice  and  impartiality  to  be  preserved  toward  all  parties, 
and  they  wish  for  friendly  intercourse  with  all — in  fine,  they  wish  for 
uninterrupted  peace. 

When  parties  are  thus  marshaled,  it  behooves  all  good  men  to  deter- 
mine on  which  side  they  will  range  themselves.  One  or  the  other 
must  prevail  ;  and  on  the  final  prevalence  of  one  or  the  other  of  these 
parties,  are  suspended  the  peace,  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  Uni- 
ted States.  CuETius. 


225  ^K. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

ORIGIN   OF  AMHERST   COLLEGE   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

The  origin  and  history  of  the  literary  institutions  of  a  nation,  serve, 
in  no  small  degree,  to  illustrate  the  character  of  the  nation,  and  their 
improvements  in  arts,  sciences  and  manners.  To  future  generations 
then,  correct  accounts  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  such  institutions 
will  form  most  interesting  portions  of  national  history.  Such  an  ac- 
count of  the  origin  of  Amherst  College,  in  the  state  of  Massachusetts, 
will  be  the  more  interesting,  as  the  circumstances  attending  its  founda- 
tion, were  in  some  respects  peculiar. 

In  the  month  of  July  or  August,  1812,  a  subscription  for  establishing 
an  Academy  in  Amherst,  was  set  on  foot  by  Hezekiah  W.  Strong,  Esq. 
By  means  of  this  subscription  and  subsequent  additions  to  it,  a  brick 
edifice  was  erected,  and  instructors  were  procured  for  the  education  of 
youth  of  both  sexes.  Success  attended  this  establishment ;  and  at  the 
session  of  the  legislature  of  the  state,  in  the  winter  of  1816,  an  act  of 
incorporation  was  obtained,  dated  February  13th.  The  trustees  named 
in  this  act  were  David  Parsons,  Nathan  Perkins,  Samuel  F.  Dickinson, 
Hezekiah  W.  Strong,  Rufus  Cowles,  Calvin  Merrill,  Noah  Webster, 
John  Woodbridge,  James  Taylor,  Nathaniel  Smith,  Josiah  Dwight, 
Rufus  Graves,  Winthrop  Bailey,  Experience  Porter  and  Elijah  Gridley. 
-  At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees,  on  the  18th  of  No- 
vember, 1817,  a  project,  formed  by  Rufus  Graves,  Esq.,  was  adopted 
for  increasing  the  usefulness  of  the  Academy,  by  raising  a  fund  for  the 
gratuitous  education  of  pious  young  men.  For  this  purpose,  the  trus- 
tees adopted  the  following  resolve  and  preamble. 

"  Taking  into  consideration  the  local  situation  of  this  Academy,  its 
growing  importance  and  flattering  prospects,  the  following  resolution, 
with  the  preamble,  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  board  of  trustees. 

"  Whereas  it  hath  pleased  the  Disposer  of  events  to  cause  an  Acad- 
emy to  be  established  in  this  place,  the  primary  objects  of  which  are  to 
improve  the  hearts,  as  well  as  to  cultivate  the  minds  of  youth  ;  to  incul- 
cate the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  sound  morality  and  evangelical  piety, 
as  well  as  to  instruct  in  the  principles  of  science  and  useful  literature : 
And  whereas  in  pursuance  of  these  principles,  under  the  guidance  of  a 
propitious  Providence,  this  institution  has  succeeded  beyond  the  most 
sanguine  expectation,  and  animating  hopes  are  cherished  of  its  future 
growth  and  progress,  and  it  has  therefore  become  an  object  of  the  high- 
est consideration  with  this  board,  to  place  the  institution  in  the  most  eli- 
gible circumstances,  for  great  and  increasing  benefits  to  the  present 
and  succeeding  generations,  by  obtaining  a  large  and  an  accumulating 
permanent  fund,  in  order  to  afford  its  instructions  gratuitously  to  indi- 
gent young  men  of  promising  talents  and  hopeful  piety,  who  shall  man- 
ifest a  desire  to  obtain  a  liberal  education  with  the  sole  view  to  the 

29 


226  ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS. 

Christian  ministry,  and  who,  on  a  reasonable  probation,  shall  be  ad- 
judged worthy  of  the  benefactions  of  the  seminary  :  And  whereas  in 
order  to  the  realizing  of  the  benefits  aforesaid,  it  becomes  requisite 
that  the  principal  instructor  at  least,  should  be  made  permanent :  And 
whereas,  also,  the  institution  having  been  located  in  an  elevated  and 
healthy  situation,  in  the  center  of  an  extensive  and  wealthy  population 
of  regular  moral  habits,  where  the  means  of  living  are  as  cheap  and  as 
easily  obtained,  as  in  any  part  of  this  commonwealth,  and  completely 
insulated  from  any  institution  embracing  similar  principles,  it  presents 
to  the  community  no  ordinary  prospects,  promising  extensive,  increas- 
ing and  lasting  blessings  to  the  church  and  to  the  world  :  Therefore, 
We,  the  trustees  aforesaid,  feeling  ourselves  under  the  weight  of  the 
most  impressive  responsibility  to  the  Author  of  all  good,  faithfully  and 
assiduously  to  avail  ourselves  of  every  advantage  of  this  auspicious 
situation,  as  well  as  sacredly  to  discharge  the  trust  reposed  in  us  by  the 
commonwealth,  and  by  every  mean  in  our  power  to  carry  into  com- 
plete effect  the  objects  contemplated  in  our  act  of  incorporation,  and 
expressed  in  the  foregoing  preamble :  Encouraged  by  the  past,  and 
animated  with  the  prospects  of  the  future,  humbly  and  devoutly  relying 
on  the  Divine  assistance  in  all  our  endeavors  to  promote  the  cause  of 
truth,  and  train  up  the  rising  generation  in  science  and  virtue — 

"  Do  hereby  resolve,  as  an  important  object  of  this  board,  to  establish 
in  this  institution  for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  a  professorship  of  lan- 
guages, with  a  permanent  salary  equal  to  the  importance  and  dignity  of 
such  an  office ;  and  that  Rufus  Graves,  Joshua  Crosby,  John  Fiske, 
Nathaniel  Smith  and  Samuel  F.  Dickinson  be  a  committee  to  solicit 
donations,  contributions,  grants  and  bequests,  to  establish  a  fund  for 
that  and  the  other  benevolent  objects  of  the  institution  ;  and  the  vera- 
city of  the  said  board  is  hereby  pledged  for  the  faithful  appropriation 
of  any  benefactions  according  to  the  will  of  the  donor." 

The  committee  named  in  the  foregoing  resolve  formed  a  constitution 
and  system  of  by-laws  for  raising  and  managing  a  permanent  fund,  as 
the  basis  of  a  classical  institution  for  the  education  of  indigent  young 
men  of  piety  and  talents  for  the  Christian  ministry ;  and  reported  the 
same  to  the  board  of  trustees  at  their  meeting  on  the  18th  day  of  Au- 
gust, 1818.  The  board  unanimously  accepted  the  report,  approved  the 
doings  of  the  committee,  and  authorized  the  committee  to  take  such 
measures  and  communicate  with  such  persons  and  corporations  as  they 
might  judge  expedient  and  conducive  to  the  great  objects  connected 
with  their  appointment.  The  Rev.  Nathan  Perkins  and  the  Rev.  Ed- 
wards Whipple  were  added  to  the  committee. 

The  committee,  before  this  report  was  made,  had  solicited  subscrip- 
tions to  constitute  a  fund  for  the  support  of  a  professorship  of  lan- 
guages, according  to  the  fii"st  project,  but  without  success.  They  found 
that  the  establishment  of  a  single  professorship  for  the  purposes  men- 
tioned in  the  project  was  too  limited  an  object  to  induce  men  to  sub- 
scribe. To  engage  public  patronage,  it  was  found  necessary  to  form 
a  plan  for  the  education  of  young  men  for  the  ministry  on  a  more  ex- 
tensive scale.  These  considerations  determined  them  to  frame  and 
report  the  constitution  and  by-laws  above  mentioned. 


ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS.  227 


A  Constitution  and  System  of  By-Laws,  for  the  raising  and  managing 
a  permanent  Charitable  Fund,  as  the  basis  of  an  Institution  in  Am- 
herst, in  the  county  of  Hampshire,  for  the  Classical  Education  of 
indigent  young  men  of  piety  and  talents,  for  the  Christian  ministry* 

Taking  into  consideration  the  deplorable  condition  of  a  large  portion 
of  our  race  who  are  enveloped  in  the  most  profound  ignorance,  cruel 
•superstition,  and  gross  idolatry ;  and  many  of  them  in  a  savage  state 
without  a  written  language  :  together  with  vast  multitudes  in  Christian 
countries,  of  which  our  own  affords  a  lamentable  specimen,  who  are 
dispersed  over  extensive  territories  as  sheep  without  a  shepherd  : — 

Impressed  with  the  most  fervent  commiseration  for  our  destitute 
brethren,  and  urged  by  the  command  of  our  divine  Savior  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature ;  we  have  resolved  to  consecrate  to  the 
Author  of  all  good,  for  the  honor  of  his  name,  and  the  benefit  of  our 
race,  a  portion  of  the  treasui*e  or  inheritance  which  He  has  been  pleased 
to  intrust  to  our  stewardship,  in  the  firm  belief  that  "  it  is  more  blessed 
to  give  than  to  receive." 

Under  the  conviction  that  the  education  of  pious  young  men  of  the 
first  talents  in  community,  is  the  most  sure  method  of  relieving  our 
brethren,  by  civilizing  and  evangelizing  the  world  ;  and  that  a  classical 
institution  judiciously  located,  and  richly  endowed  with  a  large  and 
increasing  charitable  fund,  in  co-operation  with  theological  seminaries 
and  education  societies,  will  be  the  most  eligible  way  of  effecting  it : 

Therefore,  we,  the  undersigned,  have  solemnly,  deliberately,  and 
prayerfully  made,  constituted  and  ratified,  and  by  these  presents,  and 
for  the  foregoing  weighty  considerations,  do  make,  constitute  and  ratify, 
the  following  constitution  and  system  of  by-laws,  together  with  the 
preceding  preamble,  as  the  basis  of  such  a  fund,  and  for  the  raising 
and  managing  of  the  same. 

Art.  1.  In  contemplating  the  felicitous  state  of  society,  which  is  pre- 
dicted in  the  scriptures  of  truth,  and  the  rapid  approach  of  such  a  state, 
which  the  auspices  of  the  present  day  clearly  indicate ;  and  desiring  to 
add  our  feeble  efforts  to  the  various  exertions  of  the  Christian  commu- 
nity, for  effecting  so  glorious  an  event ;  we  have  associated  together 
for  the  express  purpose  of  founding  an  institution  upon  the  genuine 
principles  of  charity  and  benevolence,  for  the  instruction  of  youth  in 
all  the  branches  of  literature  and  science  usually  taught  in  colleges ; 
to  be  located  in  the  town  of  Amherst,  in  the  county  of  Hampshire,  and 
incorporated  with  the  Academy  in  that  place,  and  with  Williams  Col- 
lege also,  should  it  continue  to  be  thought  expedient  to  remove  that 
seminary  to  said  county  of  Hampshire,  and  to  locate  it  in  the  town  of 
Amherst,  and  to  be  called  

Art.  2.  In  order  to  effect  the  benevolent  object  aforesaid,  we  whose 
names  are  hereunto  subscribed,  severally  and  solemnly  promise  to  pay 
to  the  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy  for  the  time  being,  or  to  their 
successors  in  office,  the  sums  annexed  to  our  respective  names,  for  the 
purpose  of  raising  a  permanent  fund,  of  the  amount  of  at  least  fifty 

This  constitution  was  prepared  by  Rufus  Graves,  Esq. 


I 


228  ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS. 

thousand  dollars,  as  the  basis  of  a  fund  for  the  proposed  institution,  the 
interest  of  which  to  be  appropriated  in  manner  herein  after  provided, 
to  the  increasing  said  fund,  and  for  the  classical,  or  academic  and  col- 
legiate education  of  indigent  young  men  of  promising  talents  and  hope- 
ful piety,  who  may  desire  such  an  education,  with  the  sole  view  to  the 
Christian  ministry,  and  whose  talents,  piety,  and  assiduity,  upon  a  suit- 
able probation,  shall  entitle  them  to  the  patronage  and  assistance  of  the 
institution. 

Provided  nevertheless,  and  with  a  view  to  remove  all  doubt  relative 
to  the  success  of  said  object ;  that  in  case  the  sums  subscribed  to  this 
instrument,  in  the  course  of  one  year  from  the  date  hereof,  shall  not 
amount  to  the  full  sum  of  fifty  thousand  dollars,  then  the  whole,  or  any 
part  thereof,  shall  be  void  according  to  the  will  of  any  subscriber  or 
subscribers,  he  or  they  giving  to  the  trustees  aforesaid,  three  months' 
notice  of  his  or  their  desire  of  such  avoidance  ;  and  his  or  their  obli- 
gation, or  obligations  shall  be  returned,  or  his  or  their  money,  as  the 
case  may  be,  shall  be  refunded  ;  provided,  however,  that  the  said  no- 
tice be  given  as  aforesaid,  within  three  months  next  after  the  expiration 
of  the  said  one  year  from  date. 

Art.  3.  The  aforesaid  sum  of  fifty  thousand  dollars,  together  with 
any  other  sums  that  may  be  subscribed  to  this  instrument,  or  any  sums 
which  may  be  added  to  it  by  gift,  grant,  or  bequest,  not  otherwise  par- 
ticularly appropriated  by  the  donor,  shall  be  denominated  the  Charitable 
Fund  of  the  Classical  Institution  at  Amherst,  and  is  consecrated  to  the 
education  of  indigent  young  men  of  piety  and  talents  as  aforesaid,  for 
the  Christian  ministry,  in  said  instituiion.  The  interest  and  other  avails 
of  said  fund,  shall  be  forever  appropriated  as  follows,  viz.  five  sixths 
thereof  to  the  purposes  aforesaid,  namely,  the  classical  education  of  in- 
digent, pious  young  men  ;  the  other  sixth  part  shall  be  added  to  the 
principal  as  it  shall  accrue,  for  its  perpetual  increase. 

The  principal  of  the  fund  shall  be  sacred  and  intangible,  not  subject 
to  be  diminished  by  any  exigency,  the  act  of  God  excepted,  but  shall 
be  perpetually  augmenting,  by  donations,  subscriptions,  grants,  legacies, 
and  bequests,  and  by  the  addition  of  one  sixth  part  of  the  interest  and 
other  avails,  as  aforesaid. 

Art.  4.  The  property  of  said  fund,  unless  it  be  in  productive  real 
estate,  shall  as  soon  as  convenient  be  vested  in  the  funds  of  this  com- 
monwealth, in  the  funds  of  the  United  States,  or  in  some  other  safe 
public  fund  ;  or  be  secured  by  real  estate ;  and  retained  in  as  produc- 
tive a  situation  as  may  be,  consistently  with  perfect  safety. 

Art.  5.  Until  the  aforesaid  contemplated  classical  institution,  of 
which  the  said  fund  is  to  be  the  basis  or  main  pillar,  is  formed,  estab- 
lished and  incorporated  a  body  politic,  and  organized  for  operation,  the 
property  of  said  fund  and  the  management  thereof  shall  be  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Amherst  Academy ;  so  however,  as  to  be  in 
perfect  conformity  to  the  provisions  of  this  constitution,  and  not  repug- 
nant to  the  constitution  of  this  commonwealth.  At  the  accomplishment 
of  which,  meaning  the  establishment,  incorporation,  and  organization 
of  said  institution  as  aforesaid,  the  trustees  of  said  Academy  shall,  with- 
out loss  of  time,  transfer,  set  off,  acquit  or  convey  to,  give  possession 
of,  and  pay  over  to  the  board  of  trustees  of  said  institution,  the  whole 


ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS.  22i9' 

of  the  property  of  said  fund,  whether  real,  personal  or  mixed,  in  pos- 
session or  reversion  ;  together  with  the  titles  and  evidences  of  the  same, 
with  the  obligations,  records,  files,  et  caetera ;  in  whom  and  their  suc- 
cessors in  office,  the  property  of  said  fund  and  the  m.anagement  and 
appropriation  thereof,  according  to  the  provisions  of  this  constitution, 
and  system  of  by-laws,  is  hereby,  and  shall  be  forever  vested. 

Whatever,  in  the  safe  keeping,  skillful  management,  and  faithful  ap- 
propriation of  the  aforesaid  fund  is  made  binding  on  one  of  the  said 
boards  of  trustees,  in  whom  the  same  is  or  shall  be  vested,  in  the  one 
case,  is  and  shall  be  equally  binding  on  the  other. 

Art.  6.  For  the  greater  safety,  and  more  prompt  and  easy  manage- 
ment of  so  important  a  concern,  there  shall  be  appointed  as  is  herein 
after  provided,  a  board  of  overseers,  consisting  of  at  least  seven  in 
number,  a  skillful  financier,  and  an  able  auditor. 

Art.  7.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  trustees  of  said  Academy,  or  of 
said  institution,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  appoint,  either  from  their  own 
board,  their  treasurer  excepted  who  shall  be  ineligible,  or  from  the  pub- 
lic at  large,  a  skillful  financier,  who  shall  be  sworn  to  the  faithful  dis- 
charge of  the  duties  of  his  office,  and  under  sufficient  bonds  to  said 
board  for  the  security  of  his  trust ;  and  subject  to  be  removed  at  their 
discretion  whenever  the  interest  of  the  institution  shall  require  it. 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  trustees  also,  to  examine  all  candidates 
for  the  charities  of  the  institution  ;  to  put  them  upon  such  probation  as 
shall  be  deemed  sufficient  to  determine  their  qualifications  for  admission 
as  beneficiaries  ;  and  to  apply  the  avails  of  the  fund,  either  in  whole 
or  in  part,  to  the  assistance  of  those  who  may  upon  the  issue  of  such 
examination  or  probation  be  admitted  ;  or  who  may  be  admitted  from 
similar  institutions,  or  from  education  societies  :  to  keep  a  correct  re- 
cord of  the  amount  of  said  fund,  the  situation  and  estimated  value  of 
each  part  and  parcel  thereof  which  may  be  in  real  estate,  the  rate  of 
rent,  at  which  each  may  be  leased,  and  the  time  when  due  ;  if  in  other 
estate,  the  places  of  its  deposit,  the  security  upon  which  its  safety  de- 
pends, and  the  average  rate  per  centum  of  interest  which  it  may  pro- 
duce ;  the  progressive  increase  of  the  whole  fund,  with  the  ways  and 
means  by  which  it  is  effected  ;  the  amount  received  into  their  treasury 
in  interest,  rent,  and  otherwise,  and  of  their  disbursements  ;  together 
with  a  detail  of  all  their  proceedings,  a  list  of  all  vouchers,  and  a  sum- 
mary of  the  accounts,  vouchers  and  reports  of  the  financier  :  to  pre- 
serve on  file  all  papers  that  may  directly  or  indirectly  relate  to  the  said 
fund,  or  to  the  management  thereof ;  and  to  make  a  detailed  report  of 
the  same  annually,  with  a  digest  of  their  plan  of  operation  for  the  en- 
suing year,  to  the  board  of  overseers  at  their  annual  visitation ;  exhibit- 
ing at  the  same  time,  and  at  other  times,  also,  if  requested,  to  the  said 
board,  or  to  the  said  auditor,  their  books  of  record,  their  files,  the  books 
and  files  of  the  financier,  and  any  other  evidence  it  may  be  in  their 
power  to  furnish.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  trustees,  likewise,  to 
keep  an  annual  account  current  of  all  the  losses  and  gains,  receipts  and 
expenditures  of  said  fund,  to  which  shall  be  brought  up  all  unliquidated 
and  unsettled  accounts,  arrearages,  or  surplusages  of  former  years  ;  and 
ready  to'  be  submitted  to  said  auditor  for  his  inspection,  at  least  five  days 
next  preceding  the  annual  commencement,  or  meeting  of  said  board  of 


230  ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS. 

trustees,  who  is  authorized  to  call  for  all  necessary  vouchers  to  the  same, 
whether  written  or  unwritten.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  trustees, 
also,  annually,  immediately  preceding  their  annual  meeting,  to  cause  a 
manuscript  copy  of  their  records  for  the  then  past  year,  and  also  a  copy 
of  their  files  for  the  same  period,  to  be  taken  and  attested  by  their  secre- 
tary, and  ready  to  be  delivered  to  the  said  board  of  overseers  for  safe 
keeping,  as  a  security  against  their  loss  by  fire  or  any  other  casualty. 

Art.  8.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  financier  to  receive  all  moneys  and 
other  personal  property  from  the  subscribers,  promisors,  obligors,  do- 
nors, and  executors  or  trustees  of  legators  to  said  fund,  and  without  loss 
of  time  to  place  the  same  in  the  most  productive  situation,  according  to 
the  provisions  in  the  fourth  article  of  this  constitution ;  and  to  receive 
possession  of,  and  to  farm  let  any  real  estate  which  may  have  been, 
or  which  at  any  time  hereafter  may  be  presented  to  said  fund,  by  gift, 
grant  or  bequest,  or  which  may  in  any  other  way  become  the  property 
of  said  fund  ;  and  to  purchase  insurance  of  any  property  of  said  fund, 
which  may  be  in  danger  from  fire  or  from  any  other  unforeseen  occur- 
rence. It  shall  be  his  duty  also,  diligently  and  skillfully  to  manage  the 
prudentials  of  the  said  fund,  carefully  guard  against  contingent  losses, 
and  lose  no  time  in  shifting  or  securing  the  property  when  in  danger  ; 
to  receive  the  interest  and  rents  of  the  fund  as  they  become  due,  and 
without  delay  place  one  sixth  part  of  the  amount  in  some  safe  and  pro- 
ductive department  of  the  fund,  and  deposit  the  other  five  sixths  in  the 
treasury  of  said  Academy  or  institution,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  take 
triplicate  receipts  for  the  same,  of  the  treasurer  thereof ;  one  to  keep 
for  his  own  security,  one  to  deposit  with  the  secretary  of  said  board  of 
trustees,  and  the  other  with  the  said  auditor. 

It  shall  be  his  duty  likewise  to  keep  an  accurate  account  of  the  whole 
fund,  its  original  amount,  and  progressive  increase  ;  of  its  amount  at 
the  end  of  each  year  successively,  computed  immediately  preceding 
the  annual  meeting  ;  of  the  amount  of  each  department  thereof,  where 
and  how  secured ;  the  rate  per  centum  of  interest  at  which  each  may 
lie,  and  the  time  when  due  ;  the  rate  of  rent  at  which  each  part,  parcel 
and  tenement  is  leased,  and  the  time  when  due  ;  the  amount  of  interest 
and  rent  added  to  the  principal  of  the  fund,  and  the  amount  of  money 
deposited  in  the  treasury  of  said  Academy  or  institution  ;  and  to  report 
the  whole  to  said  board  of  trustees,  with  such  remarks  and  suggestions 
as  he  may  choose  to  submit  relative  to  any  particular  system  of  finance 
he  may  deem  necessary  to  be  pursued  in  future,  and  to  lodge  the  same, 
together  with  his  account  current,  with  the  treasurer  of  said  board,  at 
least  seven  days  previously  to  the  annual  meeting  of  said  board,  that 
the  necessary  adjustments  may  be  made,  the  account  current  and  report 
of  said  board  completed,  the  requisite  vouchers  arranged,  and  ready  to 
be  submitted  to  the  inspection  of  the  said  auditor  of  accounts,  and  board 
of  overseers,  at  the  respective  times  appointed  for  that  purpose.  It 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  financier  also  to  be  present  at  all  meetings 
of  the  said  auditor  and  board  of  overseers,  for  the  examination  of  the 
accounts  and  state  of  the  fund,  and  to  present  his  books,  files,  and 
vouchers  for  their  inspection,  and  to  offer  for  their  consideration  any 
information  relative  thereto,  which  it  may  be  in  his  power  to  afford.  It 
shall  be  his  duty,  likewise,  in  case  of  his  resignation  or  being  succeeded 


ORIGIN   OF  AMHERST   COLLEGE   IN   MASSACHUSETTS,  231 

in  office,  to  deliver  to  the  said  board  of  trustees,  or  on  their  order  to  his 
successor  in  office,  the  whole  of  the  property  of  said  fund,  with  all  the 
titles  and  evidences  of  the  same,  together  with  all  his  books,  papers, 
and  files,  that  may  directly  or  indirectly  relate  to  the  fund  or  the  man- 
agement thereof;  and  in  case  of  his  death,  his  executor  or  administrator 
shall  do  the  same. 

Art.  9.  The  financier  shall  be  paid  from  the  avails  of  the  said  fund, 
a  reasonable  sum  for  his  services  and  responsibility  ;  and  all  other  ne- 
cessary expenses  that  may  accrue  in  the  management  and  appropria- 
tion of  the  fund,  or  the  avails  thereof,  shall  be  paid  in  like  manner. 

Art.  10.  The  board  of  overseers,  who  are  hereby  constituted  the 
guardians  of  said  fund,  shall  be  appointed  and  perpetuated  in  manner 
following,  viz.  Four  shall  be  appointed  by  the  four  highest  subscribers 
to  the  aforesaid  fifty  thousand  dollar  fund,  each  shall  appoint  one ;  the 
other  three  shall  be  elected  by  a  majority  of  votes  of  the  remaining  sub- 
scribers to  said  fund,  who  may  assemble  for  that  purpose.  Said  elec- 
tions to  be  made,  as  soon  as  convenient  after  the  filling  of  said  subscrip- 
tion. The  said  board  shall  perpetuate  their  existence  as  such,  by  filling 
their  own  vacancies  in  the  following  manner,  viz.  No  seat  shall  be 
suffered  to  be  vacant  for  more  than  six  months.  Vacancies  occasioned 
by  death,  resignation,  removal,  incapacity  by  age  or  otherwise,  of  which 
incapacity  the  said  board  shall  always  be  competent  to  determine,  shall 
be  filled  by  a  majority  of  votes  of  the  members  present  at  any  annual  or 
special  meeting,  regularly  notified  for  that  or  other  purposes.  Should  the 
said  board,  from  neglect,  or  by  any  fortuitous  circumstances  whatever, 
be  reduced  to  two  members,  or  even  to  one,  they  or  he  as  the  case  may 
be,  shall  be  competent  to  fill  the  vacancies  to  the  number  sufficient  to 
constitute  a  quorum,  and  the  said  board  thus  filled,  shall  elect  the  re- 
mainder. And  in  case  the  said  board  shall  at  any  future  period  become 
extinct,  the  governor  and  council  of  this  commonwealth  are  hereby 
authorized  and  requested  to  appoint  a  new  board,  with  all  the  rights, 
powers  and  immunities  of  the  former  one.  In  all  meetings  of  the  said 
board  of  overseers,  for  the  transaction  of  business,  except  in  the  matter 
of  filling  vacancies,  four  members  shall  be  necessary  to  constitute  a  quo- 
rum. And  to  prevent  the  sudden  disorganization  of  the  said  board  at 
any  time,  so  as  to  interrupt  business ;  all  resignations  shall  be  made  in 
writing  to  the  board  when  in  session,  and  if  convenient,  handed  in  by 
the  member  himself,  that  the  vacancy  may  be  immediately  filled.  But, 
the  resignation  shall  not  be  accepted,  so  as  to  disqualify  the  member  so 
offering  his  resignation  from  acting  with  the  board,  in  all  matters  pend- 
ing before  them,  till  another  shall  be  elected  in  his  stead,  and  has  sig- 
nified his  acceptance. 

Art.  11.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  board  of  overseers,  as  the  guardi- 
ans of  said  fund,  to  appoint  annually,  or  to  appoint  and  continue  in  office 
during  their  pleasure,  either  from  their  own  body,  or  from  community 
at  large,  an  able  auditor  of  accounts,  who  shall  be  sworn  to  the  faithful 
and  impartial  discharge  of  the  duties  of  his  office  ;  and  to  certify  to  said 
board  of  trustees  every  such  appointment. 

It  shall  be  their  duty  also,  to  visit  the  said  institution  at  its  annual  com- 
mencement, or  the  board  of  trustees  in  whom  the  property  and  manage- 
ment of  said  fund  are  vested,  at  their  annual  meeting  in  each  year  sue- 


232  ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS. 

cessively  forever ;  to  receive  and  diligently  and  impartially  examine 
their  report,  which  should  always  contain  a  correct  statement  of  the  na- 
ture  and  amount  of  the  original  fund,  the  evidences  of  the  property, 
how  situated,  whore  deposited  and  how  secured  ;  its  progressive  increeise 
from  year  to  year,  and  the  ways  and  means  by  which  effected,  with 
the  aggregate  amount  at  the  date  of  each  annual  report ;  the  amount  of 
interest  and  rent,  the  avails  of  the  fund,  or  of  donations  and  subscrip- 
tions made  in  aid  of  said  fund,  received  into  their  treasury,  with  the 
amount  of  their  disbursements  ;  together  with  a  list  of  the  beneficiaries 
receiving  support  in  whole,  or  in  part  from  said  fund,  and  the  amount 
of  assistance  afforded  to  each ;  to  receive  also,  and  examine  the  report 
of  the  said  auditor,  and  to  inspect  the  records,  files  and  vouchers  of  the 
trustees  and  financier  aforesaid.  It  shall  be  their  duty  likewise,  scrupu- 
lously and  impartially  to  examine  and  compare  all  the  documents,  care- 
fully attend  to  the  oral  representations  of  the  officers  and  trustees  afore- 
said explanatory  thereof,  and  in  view  of  all  the  facts  to  decide,  whether 
the  said  fund  has  been  skillfully  managed,  and  whether  the  avails  thereof 
have  been  sacredly  and  economically  applied  according  to  the  will  of 
the  donors,  as  is  provided  in  this  constitution  and  system  of  by-laws ; 
and  whether  the  financial  system  pursued,  or  proposed  to  be  pursued  in 
future,  is  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  this  instrument.  The  sacred 
nature  of  the  trust  reposed  in  the  said  board  of  overseers,  as  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  rights  of  the  dead,  as  well  as  of  the  living,  urges  upon 
them  the  imperious  duty  of  investigating  every  subject  relative  to  their 
important  trust,  so  as  to  enable  them  to  approve  or  disapprove  of  the 
management  of  any  part  of  the  concern  ;  to  point  out  any  errors  they 
may  have  observed,  or  any  improvements  which  they  conceive  may  be 
made ;  to  detect  any  violation  of  rights,  breach  of  trust,  or  abuse  of 
powers ;  any  perversion  of  the  fund,  or  misappropriation  of  the  avails 
thereof,  and  to  suggest  the  same  to  the  said  trustees  with  a  view  to  pro- 
duce a  reform.  Should  the  circumstances  be  such  in  any  case,  as  to 
force  a  conviction,  that  the  constitution  and  laws  had  been  violated,  and 
the  sacred  deposit  perverted  ;  should  the  trustees  aforesaid,  to  whose 
fidelity  it  had  been  intrusted,  disavow  the  facts,  and  persist  in  the  vindi- 
cation of  the  purity  of  their  motives,  and  the  wisdom  of  their  measures  ; 
and  should  the  reasons  offered  in  justification  thereof,  be  insufficient  to 
satisfy  the  said  board  of  overseers,  and  to  remove  those  impressions ; 
they  the  said  board  of  overseers  shall  enter  their  protest  in  writing,  spe- 
cifying the  grounds  of  their  conviction  as  aforesaid ;  which  together 
with  the  reasons  offered  by  the  said  board  of  trustees  in  their  justifica- 
tion, shall  be  entered  on  the  records  of  both  boards.  And  the  question 
shall  be  submitted  to  the  honorable  justices  of  the  supreme  judicial 
court  of  this  commonwealth,  whose  decision  shall  be  final ;  and  shall  be 
entered  on  the  records  of  both  of  the  said  boards.  Any  similar  or  oth- 
er questions  of  rights,  powers  or  amenability  shall  be  submitted  in  the 
same  way.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  board  of  overseers  to  keep 
a  fair  and  correct  record  of  all  their  proceedings,  relative  to  the  execu- 
tion of  their  important  trust ;  to  record  or  preserve  on  file  the  annual 
reports  of  the  said  board  of  trustees,  and  the  reports  of  the  said  auditor  ; 
to  receive  and  safely  preserve  the  manuscript  copies  of  the  records,  and 
the  copies  of  the  files  of  the  board  of  trustees,  which  shall  be  annually 


ORIGIN   OF   AMHERST  COLLEGE   IN   MASSACHUSETTS.  23^ 

furnished  and  attested  by  the  secretary  thereof,  and  delivered  at  the 
annual  visitation,  that  the  whole  of  the  records  of  the  institution  may  be 
safely  preserved  in  the  archives  of  both  boards.  And  in  case  of  the 
loss,  or  destruction  of  the  records  and  files  of  either  of  the  said  boards, 
by  fire  or  otherwise,  the  secretary  or  recording  officer  of  the  other,  shall 
lose  no  time  in  furnishing  attested  copies  of  the  whole  to  supply  the  de- 
ficiency. 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  board  of  overseers,  annually,  or  when- 
ever in  their  opinion  the  interest  of  the  institution,  or  the  public  good 
requires  it,  to  publish  a  correct  report  of  the  state  of  said  fund,  its  pro- 
gressive increase,  growing  importance  and  extensive  utility. 

Art.  12.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  auditor  to  attend  at  said  institu- 
tion a  sufficient  length  of  time  within  the  five  days  next  preceding  the 
annual  commencement,  or  annual  meeting  of  said  board  of  trustees,  to 
receive  and  audit  all  the  accounts  of  said  board  relative  to  the  manage- 
ment of  said  fund,  examining  all  books,  files,  vouchers  and  oral  testimo- 
ny which  it  may  be  in  their  power  to  afford  illustrative  of  the  same  ;  and 
to  make  a  detailed  report  of  the  state  in  which  he  finds  them,  to  the  said 
board  of  overseers  at  their  annual  visitation.  It  shall  be  his  duty  also, 
to  attend  to  the  duties  of  his  office  at  other  times,  in  the  interval,  if  the 
exigencies  of  the  institution  or  fund  shall  require  it.  He  shall  also 
keep  a  correct  record  of  all  his  proceedings  from  year  to  year ;  and  in 
case  of  his  resignation,  or  being  succeeded  in  office,  shall  lodge  the  same 
with  the  said  board  of  overseers. 

Art.  13.  It  being  the  design  of  the  founders  of  this  establishment,  that 
its  benefits  should  be  handed  down  inviolate  to  all  succeeding  genera- 
tions, and  considering  the  inadequacy  of  human  forethought  to  provide 
for  every  exigence  that  may  occur  in  the  course  of  long  experience,  we 
the  undersigned  agree,  that  this  constitution  and  system  of  by-laws,  may 
be  altered  or  amended,  by  the  board  of  trustees  of  said  institution,  and 
the  board  of  overseers  of  said  fund,  so  however,  as  not  to  deviate  from 
the  original  object  of  civilizing  and  evangelizing  the  world,  by  the  clas- 
sical education  of  indigent  young  men  of  piety  and  talents  ;  but,  it  shall 
not  be  altered  or  amended,  except  from  the  most  weighty  considerations, 
and  by  the  concurrence  of  both  the  said  boards,  each  holding  a  negative 
upon  the  other ;  nor  without  the  majority  of  two  thirds  of  the  members 
of  the  said  board  of  trustees,  and  five  sevenths  of  the  members  of  the 
said  board  of  overseers. 

A  proposition  for  amendment  may  originate  in  either  of  said  boards, 
but  it  shall  not  be  proposed  to  the  other,  till  it  has  been  fairly  and  delib- 
erately discussed  where  it  originated,  and  passed  by  the  majority  assign- 
ed as  above  to  the  said  board.  It  shall  then  be  sent  to  the  other  board 
for  concurrence,  where  it  shall  undergo  a  like  discussion,  and  if  con- 
curred in  by  the  majority  assigned  also  to  that  board,  it  shall  become  a 
part  of  this  constitution,  otherwise  not. 

Art.  14.  In  order  to  prevent  the  loss  or  destruction  of  this  constitu- 
tion, by  any  wicked  design,  by  fire,  or  by  the  ravages  of  time,  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  trustees  of  the  said  institution,  as  soon  as  the  afore- 
said sum  of  fifty  thousand  dollars  shall  be  hereunto  subscribed,  to  cause 
triplicate  copies  of  the  same,  together  with  the  names  of  the  subscribers 
and  the  sum  subscribed  annexed  to  each  name,  to  be  taken,  fairly  writ- 

30 


234  ORIGIN    OF    AMHERST   COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS. 

ten  on  vellum,  one  of  which  to  be  preserved  in  the  archives  of  said  in- 
stitution, one  in  the  archives  of  the  said  board  of  overseers,  and  the 
other  in  the  archives  of  this  commonwealth.  And  in  case  of  the  loss  or 
destruction  of  either  of  said  copies,  its  deficiency  shall  be  immediately 
supplied  by  an  attested  copy  from  one  of  the  others. 
May  23,  1818. 

It  will  be  seen  by  the  vote  of  the  trustees  on  the  18th  of  August, 
above  cited,  by  which  the  committee  were  authorized  to  "  communicate 
with  such  persons  and  corporations  as  they  might  judge  expedient," 
that  the  trustees  of  the  Academy  had  been  apprised  of  the  contempla- 
ted design  of  the  trustees  of  Williams  College,  to  remove  that  institu- 
tion to  some  town  in  one  of  the  counties  which  formerly  constituted  the 
old  county  of  Hampshire.  A  committee  of  the  trustees  of  that  college 
had  visited  Amherst  for  the  purpose  of  inquiring  into  the  situation  and 
advantages  of  the  town  for  being  the  seat  of  that  college ;  and  under 
the  authority  of  the  vote  of  August  18  above  cited,  two  gentlemen  from 
the  board  of  trustees  of  Amhei*st  Academy  had  waited  upon  the  trus- 
tees of  Williams  College  the  first  week  in  September,  and  presented  to 
them  a  copy  of  the  said  vote,  and  a  copy  of  the  constitution  above 
cited.  The  board  of  trustees  of  Williams  College  returned  the  papers 
to  the  committee  without  any  answer.  This  silence  of  the  board  of 
trustees  of  Williams  College,  was  considered  by  the  trustees  of  Amherst 
Academy  as  a  declining  to  accede  to  any  proposal  for  uniting  that  col- 
lege with  the  proposed  institution  in  Amherst. 

On  the  tenth  day  of  September,  soon  after  the  committee  had  return- 
ed from  Williamstown,  the  board  of  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy 
resolved,  "  that  in  the  opinion  of  this  board,  it  is  expedient  to  invite  a 
convention  of  clergy  and  laity  to  approve  and  patronize  the  charitable 
literary  institution  contemplated  by  this  board,  for  the  education  of  pious 
indigent  young  men  for  the  gospel  ministry." 

"  Resolved,  that  this  convention  be  composed  of  the  congregational 
and  presbyterian  clergy  of  the  several  parishes  in  the  counties  of  Hamp- 
shire, Franklin,  and  Hampden,  and  the  western  section  of  the  county 
of  Worcester,  with  their  delegates,  together  with  one  delegate  from 
each  vacant  parish,  and  the  subscribers  to  the  fund."  • 

Noah  Webster,  Esq.,  the  Rev.  John  Fiske,  and  Rufus  Graves,  Esq. 
were  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  a  circular  for  convoking  the 
convention,  and  managing  the  concerns  of  the  corporation  before  that 
body.     The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  circular  addressed  to  the  clergy. 

To  the  Rev. . 


Sir — The  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy  have,  for  some  time  past, 
contemplated  the  establishment  of  a  charitable  institution,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  educating  pious  indigent  young  men  for  the  Gospel  ministry. 
The  interests  of  Zion  in  our  own  country,  and  the  conversion  of  the 
heathen,  present  powerful  motives  for  the  union  of  all  good  men  in 
combined  and  vigorous  exertions  to  multiply  the  number  of  well  edu- 
cated ministers  of  the  Gospel,  to  supply  missionaries  and  furnish  desti- 
tute churches  and  people  in  our  own  extensive  republic.  Impelled  by 
their  own  conviction  of  the  importance  of  this  object,  and  urged  by  the 


ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS.  235 

advice  and  solicitations  of  many  respectable  Christian  friends,  both  of 
the  clergy  and  laity,  they  have  adopted  the  resolution  to  attempt  the 
establishment  of  such  a  seminary.  For  this  purpose  they  have  formed 
a  constitution  for  a  charitable  fund,  to  be  the  basis  of  such  an  institu- 
tion, and  have  made  such  progress  in  procuring  donations,  as  to  afford 
most  animating  encouragement  of  success.  The  disposition  of  the 
public  to  encourage  and  support  such  an  institution,  appears  to  be  fa- 
vorable, beyond  our  most  sanguine  expectations.  As  it  is  proposed  to 
instruct  young  men  in  all  the  branches  of  literature  and  science  usually 
taught  in  colleges,  the  magnitude  of  the  object  renders  it,  in  our  opin- 
ion, important  that  such  an  institution  should  embrace  the  interests  and 
unite  the  hearts  of  good  men,  in  a  territory  of  considerable  extent. 

For  this  reason  we  have  judged  it  expedient  to  invite  to  a  concurrence 
and  combined  effort,  the  settled  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  within  the  three 
counties  of  Hampshire,  Hampden,  and  Franklin,  and  of  the  towns  in 
the  western  part  of  the  county  of  Worcester ;  each  minister  to  be  at- 
tended by  a  lay  delegate,  to  be  chosen  or  appointed  in  such  manner  as 
he  shall  deem  expedient.  A  delegate  will  also  be  invited  from  each 
vacant  parish.  It  is  requested  that  the  clergy  and  delegates  should 
meet  in  convention  with  the  subscribers  to  the  fund,  at  the  church  in 
the  west  parish  in  Amherst,  in  the  county  of  Hampshire,  on  Tuesday, 
the  twenty  ninth  day  of  September  instant,  at  nine  o'clock,  A.  M  ;  then 
and  there  to  deliberate  on  this  important  subject,  equally  interesting  to 
the  present  and  future  generations. 

If,  sir,  you  concur  with  us  in  opinion  respecting  the  importance  of 
such  an  institution  in  this  district  of  country,  and  are  disposed  to  lend 
to  it  the  aid  of  your  influence,  we  request  your  attendance,  with  a  del- 
egate, at  the  time  and  place  above  named. 

By  order  of  the  Board  of  Trustees, 

Noah  Webster,  \ 
John  Fiske,         >  Committee. 
RuFus  Graves,  j 
Amherst,  Sept.  11, 1818. 


On  the  twenty  ninth  day  of  September,  1818,  the  proposed  conven- 
tion was  formed  in  the  church  in  the  West  Parish  of  Amherst.  It  was 
composed  of  the  following  gentlemen. 

HAMPSHIRE    COUNTY. 

Ministers  and  Delegates. 

Amherst^  (1st  Parish.) — Rev.  David  Parsons,  Hez.  W.  Strong,  Esq. 

"         {2d  Parish.) — Rev.  Nathan  Perkins,  Dea.  Nathan  Franklin. 
Belchertown. — Rev.  Experience  Porter,  Col.  Henry  Dwight. 
Cummington. — Mr.  Amos  Cobb. 

Easthampton. — Rev.  P.  Williston,  Dea.  Thaddeus  Clapp. 
Enfield. — Rev.  Joshua  Crosby,  Mr.  Rufus  Powers. 
Granby. — Rev.  E.  Gridley,  Dea.  John  Stebbins. 
Goshen. — Oliver  Taylor,  Esq. 

Hadley. — Rev.  John  Woodbridge,  Samuel  Porter,  Esq. 
Hatfield. — Rev.  Joseph  Lyman,  D.  D.,  Col.  Jos.  Billings. 
Northampton. — Rev.  S.  Williams,  Hon.  Joseph  Lyman. 


236  ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST   COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHTTSETTS. 

Wart. — Rev.  L.  Ware,  Dea.  Eli  Snow. 

Pelham. — Rev.  Winthrop  Bailey,  Dea.  Abia  Southworth. 

Southampton. — Rev.  Vinson  Gould,  Maj.  John  Lyman. 

Westham-pton. — Rev.  E.  Hale,  Dr.  William  Hooker. 

Williamsburg. — Rev.  Henry  Lord. 

Rev.  Dan  Huntington  of  Hadley  attended. 

FRANKLIN    COUNTY. 

Buckland. — Rev.  J.  Spalding,  Mr.  Alpheus  Brooks. 
Conway. — Rev.  J.  Emerson,  Capt.  John  Williams. 
Gill— Rev.  J.  W.  Cannon,  Col.  Seth  S.  Rowland. 
Greenjield. — Rev.  S.  Woodbridge,  Mr.  Quintus  Allen. 
Poll  Parish. — George  Grennell,  Esq. 
Deerjield,  Poll  Parish. — Rev.  Mr.  Rice,  Dea.  Elisha  Clary. 
Hawley. — Rev.  J.  Grout. 
Heath. — Rev.  Mr.  Miller,  Roger  Leavitt,  Esq. 
Leverett. — Rev.  J.  Wright,  Mr,  Erastus  Field. 
Montague. — Rev.  A.  Gates,  Mr.  Martin  Root 
Shelburne. — Rev.  Theoph.  Packard,  Mr.  Elisha  Smead. 
Shutesbury. — Rev.  J.  Taylor,  Mr.  Samuel  Clark. 
Sunderland. — Rev.  James  Taylor,  Mr.  Benj.  Graves. 
WJiately.—Rev.  R.  Wells,  Dea.  John  White. 

HAMPDEN    COUNTY. 

Blanford. — Rev.  J.  Keep. 
Chranville. — Rev.  T.  M.  Cooley. 

"        2rf  Parish. — Rev.  J.  Baker,  Mr.  Hezekiah  Robinson. 
Palmer. — Rev.  S.  Colton. 
Westfield.—Rev.  T.  Knapp. 

WORCESTER   COUNTY. 

Sturbridge. — Rev.  O.  Lane,  Mr.  Eli  Wheeler. 
Southbridge, — Rev.  J.  Park,  Mr.  John  Morse. 
New  Braintree. — Rev.  J.  Fiske. 
North  Brookfield. — Rev.  T.  Snell,  Mr.  Moses  Bond. 

The  convention  chose  the  Rev.  Joseph  Lyman,  D.  D.,  president,  and 
Col.  Joseph  Billings  and  George  Grennell,  secretaries. 

The  meeting  was  introduced  by  prayer  by  the  president.  The  pro- 
posed constitution  and  by-laws  for  the  government  of  the  proposed  in- 
stitution was  read  by  N.  Webster. 

After  some  discussion,  the  convention  voted  to  appoint  a  committee 
of  twelve,  to  take  the  subject  into  consideration  and  make  report.  The 
following  persons  were  elected  committee  : — 

Rev.  Theophilus  Packard,  Roger  Leavitt,  Esq.,  Hon.  Joseph  Lyman, 
Rev.  Timothy  M.  Cooley,  Rev.  Thomas  Snell,  Rev.  Dan  Huntington, 
Elisha  Billings,  Esq.,  Rev.  Enoch  Hale,  Rev.  Moses  Miller,  Rev.  John 
Keep,  Rev.  Otis  Lane,  Rev.  Vinson  Gould. 

In  the  afternoon  a  sermon  was  delivered  before  the  convention  by  the 
Rev.  Joseph  Lyman,  D.  D.,  who  received  a  vote  of  thanks  for  the  same. 


ORIGIN   OF   AMHERST  COLLEGE   IN   MASSACHUSETTS.  237 

On  Wednesday  the  30th  of  September,  the  committee  reported  to 
the  convention,  as  follows  : 

Your  committee,  sensible  of  the  confidence  reposed  in  them  by  the 
convention,  and  of  the  obligation  under  which  they  act,  have  taken  the 
subject  proposed  into  serious  and  careful  consideration,  have  examined 
it  in  its  several  bearings  and  relations,  and  beg  leave  to  report : 

The  plan  of  a  literary  institution  founded  on  the  general  principles 
of  charity  and  benevolence,  to  give  a  classical  or  collegiate  education 
to  indigent  pious  young  men  of  talents,  while  it  proposes  the  ordinary 
advantages  to  others,  is  peculiarly  suited  to  the  exigencies  of  the  day, 
and  calculated  to  answer  extensively  benevolent  purposes,  in  relation 
both  to  the  church  and  to  the  world. 

This  plan  proposes  a  literary  institution  of  a  peculiar  character,  in 
no  way  hostile  to  any  other  in  our  country — an  institution  in  its  very 
nature  and  tendency  suited  to  receive  aid  and  encouragement  from 
other  charitable  institutions,  and  at  the  same  time  to  impart  aid  and  in- 
fluence to  every  other  system  of  benevolent  exertion,  now  in  operation 
to  spread  the  gospel,  and  extend  the  empire  of  divine  grace. 

The  written  constitution,  submitted  to  this  convention,  is  obviously  the 
fruit  of  much  judicious  reflection  and  mature  consideration.  Already 
has  it  received  the  sanction  of  a  considerable  number  of  benevolent 
individuals,  who,  after  deliberate  examination,  have  subscribed  the  instru- 
ment as  donors.  Your  committee,  according  to  their  ability  and  oppor- 
tunity, have  examined  and  approved  said  constitution,  as  a  legal  instru- 
ment. In  their  opinion,  it  is  executed  with  skill  and  judgment,  guard- 
ing, in  the  most  satisfactory  and  effectual  manner,  the  faithful  and  ap- 
propriate application  of  the  property  consecrated  by  the  donors.  And 
while  the  general  object  is  to  benefit  our  own  and  other  countries  by 
the  education  of  indigent  young  men  of  hopeful  piety  and  talents,  the 
instrument  is  so  formed,  as  to  leave  open  a  door  for  a  union  of  interests 
with  Williams  College,  upon  fair  and  honorable  principles,  should  the 
guardians  of  that  institution  deem  it  useful  and  expedient  to  remove 
their  charge  and  form  the  connection. 

That  an  institution  of  this  description,  designed  to  diffuse  its  blessings, 
with  increasing  influence,  to  the  end  of  time,  should  be  judiciously 
located,  can  not  be  reasonably  questioned ;  nor  can  it  be  reasonably 
doubted,  that  Hampshire  County  presents  one  of  the  most  eligible 
places  for  the  purpose  in  the  United  States.  Thus  would  it  be  estab- 
lished in  the  central  part  of  Massachusetts  proper,  naturally  excite  an 
extensive  interest,  and  hopefully  secure  the  patronage  of  the  state. 
Here  it  would  stand  in  the  heart  of  New  England,  and  almost  equally 
distant  from  six  other  colleges ;  in  an  extensive  section  of  country 
salubrious,  fertile  and  populous,  where  industry  and  moral  order,  to- 
gether with  a  disposition  to  cultivate  science  and  literature,  habitually 
prevail ;  where  ministers  and  churches  are  generally  united  and  har- 
monious, and  where  the  numerous  streams  of  benevolent  charity,  flow- 
ing into  the  treasury  of  the  Lord,  afford  ample  assurance  that  an  insti- 
tution of  this  description  would  be  cordially  embraced,  extensively  pat- 
ronized and  liberally  supported. 

Having  compared  a  number  of  pleasant  towns  in  this  vicinity,  in 
relation  to  advantages  and  disadvantages,  in  either  of  which  an  institu- 


238  ORIGIN   OF   AMHERST   COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS. 

tion  of  this  sort  would  be  undoubtedly  cherished  and  liberally  aided 
with  great  cordiality,  they  are  of  opinion, 

1st.  That  an  institution  might  flourish  as  located  in  the  constitution, 
and  at  the  same  time,  are  convinced,  that  it  might  flourish  to  a  greater 
extent,  were  it  to  have  the  advantage  of  that  union,  which  would  result 
from  its  location  by  a  disinterested  committee  appointed  by  the  con- 
vention. 

2d.  In  this  general  view  of  the  subject  submitted  to  their  considera- 
tion, the  committee  cordially  approve  the  object  of  a  religious  and  clas- 
sical institution  on  a  charitable  foundation,  in  the  town  of  Amherst,  and 
recommend  to  the  convention  to  give  it  their  united  and  individual  pat- 
ronage. 

3d.  They  also  recommend  that  suitable  measures  be  adopted  by  the 
trustees  of  Amherst  Academy,  for  the  establishment  of  a  college  in 
connection  with  the  charitable  institution,  possessing  all  the  advantages 
of  other  colleges  in  the  commonwealth. 

4th.  That  it  is  expected  by  this  convention  that  in  order  to  satisfy  the 
public,  the  people  of  the  town  of  Amherst  show  themselves  worthy  of 
such  an  important  privilege  by  affording  seasonable  and  liberal  aid 
toward  erecting  college  buildings. 

5th.  They  also  recommend  that  such  preparations  and  arrangements 
be  made,  as  will  accommodate  students  at  the  institution,  as  soon  as 
possible. 

With  these  resolutions  and  recommendations,  your  committee  express 
their  fervent  wish  that  the  great  object  may  be  kept  in  distinct  view  in 
this  body,  that  there  may  be  union  and  harmony  of  feelings  and  delib- 
erations, and  that  it  will  please  our  God  and  Savior  to  succeed  the  en- 
deavors of  his  servants,  and  render  the  contemplated  institution  a  rich 
blessing  to  the  church  of  this  generation,  and  to  the  most  distant  pos- 
terity. Adopted  unanimously  by  the  committee. 
A  true  copy. 

Attest,        Joseph  Billings,  Secretary. 

After  a  full  discussion,  the  preamble  of  the  report  was  approved  and 
accepted.  On  motion  of  Mr.  Grout  the  first  article  of  the  report  was 
rejected.  The  second  article  was  amended  by  inserting  "  in  the  town 
of  Amherst"  after  foundation.  The  third  article  was  amended  by 
inserting,  "  by  the  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy,"  after  the  word 
adopted ;  and  the  fourth  article  was  amended  as  above  recited,  and 
then  the  whole  report  was  adopted  by  a  large  majority  of  votes. 

At  a  special  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy, 
October  26,  1818,  the  board  appointed  the  Rev.  John  Fiske,  Noah 
Webster,  and  Nathaniel  Smith,  Esquires,  a  committee  to  confer  with 
the  board  of  trustees  of  Williams  College  at  their  session  to  be  held  in 
Williamstown  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  November  then  next,  to  com- 
municate to  them  the  result  of  the  late  convention  in  Amherst,  and  to 
make  suitable  statements  and  explanations,  respecting  the  same. 

In  pursuance  of  this  appointment,  the  committee  repaired  to  Wil- 
liamstown, at  the  proper  time,  and  presented  to  the  board  of  trustees  of 
Williams  College  a  copy  of  the  proceedings  and  resolutions  of  the 
convention,  and  also  made  to  the  board  such  verbal  representations  of 
facts,  as  they  supposed  to  be  useful  and  proper. 


-^fjSJl^. 


ORIGIN   OF  AMHERST   COLLEGE   IN   MASSACHUSETTS.  239 


To  these  communications  no  answer  was  given.  But  at  this  meet- 
ing, the  board  of  trustees  of  Williams  College  resolved  that  it  was  ex- 
pedient to  remove  the  college,  on  certain  conditions,  and  as  a  prelimi- 
nary measure,  they  appointed  the  Hon.  James  Kent,  Chancellor  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  the  Hon.  Nathaniel  Smith,  one  of  the  Judges  of 
the  Superior  Court  of  Connecticut,  and  the  Rev.  Seth  Payson,  D.  D.  of 
Rindge  in  New  Hampshire,  to  determine  the  place  to  which  the  college 
should  be  removed. 

In  consequence  of  this  determination  of  the  board  of  trustees  of 
Williams  College,  the  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy  at  their  annual 
meeting,  November  17,  1818,  appointed  Noah  Webster,  Esq.,  the  Rev. 
John  Fiske,  the  Rev.  Edwards  Whipple,  the  Rev.  Joshua  Crosby  and 
Nathaniel  Smith,  Esq.,  to  be  a  committee  to  attend  upon  the  committee 
appointed  to  locate  Williams  College,  to  represent  to  them  the  claims  of 
the  town  of  Amherst  to  be  the  seat  of  the  college,  including  the  funds 
procured  by  the  trustees  of  the  Academy  for  a  charitable  institution,  the 
recommendation  of  the  convention  of  clergy  and  lay  delegates  in  con- 
vention in  September  last,  the  conveniences  of  geographical  position, 
and  all  other  facts  and  circumstances  that  might  affect  a  decision  of  the 
question. 

At  this  meeting  of  the  board,  the  secretary,  Rufus  Graves,  Esq.  re- 
ported that  the  subscriptions  to  the  charitable  fund,  and  the  value  of  the 
six  acres  of  land  given  by  Col.  Elijah  Dickinson  for  the  site  of  the 
buildings  of  the  institution,  amounted  to  twenty  five  thousand  and  five 
hundred  dollars. 

On  account  of  the  lateness  of  the  season,  when  the  locating  com- 
mittee received  their  appointment,  their  meeting  on  the  business  of 
their  appointment  was  deferred  till  the  folfcwing  spring.  In  May, 
1819,  the  committee  met,  and  took  a  view  of  several  towns  in  Franklin 
and  Hampshire  counties,  and  of  Amherst,  among  the  others. 

The  committee  of  the  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy,  appointed  to 
attend  upon  the  locating  committee,  and  present  to  them  the  claims  of 
Amherst,  waited  upon  them  at  Northampton,  and  read  to  them  the  fol- 
lowing observations,  which  had  been  previously  prepared. 

In  designating  the  situation  of  Williams  College,  we  suppose  the  most 
important  considerations  are — 

1.  The  conveniences  of  the  situation  for  accommodating  the  people 
of  the  five  western  counties  of  Massachusetts. 

2.  The  salubrity  of  the  climate  and  pleasantness  of  the  country. 

3.  The  cheapness  of  subsistence,  including  provisions  and  fuel. 

4.  The  advantages  for  literary  and  moral  improvement  in  this  and  in 
future  ages, 

1.  In  the  first  particular,  the  town  of  Amherst  has,  in  our  apprehension, 
a  decided  advantage  over  every  other  town  in  the  counties  on  the  river. 

The  territory  to  be  particularly  accommodated  by  this  college,  com- 
prehends the  counties  of  Berkshire,  Hampshire,  Hampden,  Franklin, 
and  Worcester.  Many  persons  in  Middlesex  and  Norfolk  counties  take 
a  particular  interest  in  this  institution.  The  hill  in  the  center  of  the 
west  road  in  Amherst,  on  which  the  church  stands,  is  within  about  two 
miles  of  the  geometrical  center  of  this  territory  ;  taking  Pittsfield  on 


240  ORIGIN   OF    AMHERST  COLLEGE   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

the  west,  and  the  town  of  Worcester  on  the  east,  as  the  two  extremes. 
It  is  equally  central  between  the  limits  of  the  commonwealth  on  the 
north  and  south.  In  addition  to  this  fact,  it  may  be  observed  that  it  is 
almost  equally  distant  from  the  university  of  Cambridge,  the  college  in 
Providence,  and  the  college  in  New  Haven ;  the  distance  from  each 
being  about  eighty  five  miles.  It  is  a  hundred  miles  from  Union  Col- 
lege, in  Schenectady,  N.  Y.,  from  Dartmouth  College,  in  Hanover, 
N.  H.,  and  a  greater  distance  from  Middlebury  College,  in  Vermont. 

The  roads  leading  to  and  from  this  town  are  as  good  as  any  roads  in 
the  country,  excepting  pei-haps  a  mile  or  two  on  the  mountain,  the  road 
leading  to  South  Hadley  and  Granby,  which  is  not  so  well  made  and  in 
as  good  repair  as  the  other  country  roads.  But  this  road,  with  the 
usual  labor  bestowed  on  public  highways,  will  be  as  good  as  others,  and 
furnish  an  easier  passage  over  the  mountain  than  the  river  road,  as  the 
hills  are  not  so  long  and  difficult.  It  is  important  also  to  state,  that  in 
the  spring  of  the  year  it  often  happens  that  the  river  road  from  South 
Hadley  is  impassable  for  days  or  weeks  by  means  of  a  flood  in  Con- 
necticut River. 

2.  In  regard  to  the  salubrity  of  the  climate,  no  great  advantage,  we 
believe,  can  be  pleaded  in  favor  of  any  town  in  the  river  counties,  as 
the  climate  is  every  where  healthy.  But  in  all  the  particulars  which 
constitute  salubrity  and  pleasantness  of  situation,  Amherst  presents  ad- 
vantages, which,  in  no  respect,  are  exceeded  in  any  town,  and  in  some 
respects  are  unrivaled.  The  land  on  the  hill  before  mentioned  is  so 
elevated  as  to  command  an  uninterrupted  view  of  the  plains  on  the 
banks  of  Connecticut  River,  and  of  a  great  extent  of  country  west  of 
the  river.  With  a  radius  of  thirty  miles  in  length,  an  arch  may  be 
described,  which  will  (f)mprehend  about  thirty  townships,  extending 
from  the  south  line  of  Hampden  County,  into  Franklin  County  on  the 
north,  all  of  which  fall  within  a  single  view  ;  and  it  is  said  by  gentle- 
men well  acquainted  with  these  three  counties,  that  the  church  of  the 
first  parish  in  Amherst  may  be  seen  from  twenty  seven  towns. 

The  scenery  presented  to  the  eye  at  this  spot  is  highly  beautiful. 
The  range  of  mountains  on  the  south  and  southwest,  the  hills  on  the 
east,  the  more  distant  cliffs  on  the  north,  the  great  variety  of  slopes  and 
vales  which  diversify  the  scenery,  and  the  vast  extent  of  prospect  on 
the  west  and  northwest,  offer  to  the  eye  of  a  spectator  one  of  the  most 
picturesque  landscapes  which  New  England  affords. 

Nor  are  the  advantages  of  this  situation  calculated  only  to  gratify 
the  eye  ;  they  furnish  also  means  of  health,  particularly  useful  to  stu- 
dents. It  is  to  be  observed  that  this  hill  presents  an  open  prospect  to  the 
west,  giving  the  advantage  of  an  uninterrupted  current  of  wind  from 
that  quarter,  from  which  the  wind  usually  blows  in  summer,  when  re- 
freshing breezes  are  most  necessary  for  men  of  study.  In  winter,  the 
temperature  of  the  air  appears,  by  thermometrical  observations,  to  be 
no  colder  than  it  is  at  Northampton  and  in  other  towns  on  the  river. 
But  if  it  were,  it  would  be  no  material  inconvenience,  as  we  can  always 
moderate  cold  at  pleasure  in  warm  rooms,  but  we  have  no  power  to 
moderate  extreme  heat,  which  is  far  more  inconvenient  to  the  student, 
by  its  debilitating  effects,  except  by  availing  ourselves  of  a  fresh  cur- 
rent of  air.    And  while  this  hill  in  Amherst  offers  the  best  advantages 


ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS.  241 

for  this  purpose,  it  is  remarkably  defended  from  the  unpleasant  effects 
of  easterly  winds  by  a  range  of  hills  on  the  east  of  the  town.  It  may 
be  asserted  with  truth,  that  the  easterly  winds  in  this  town  are  not  ordi- 
narily of  half  the  strength  which  they  are  on  the  sea-coast.  It  may  be 
added,  that  the  water  found  in  this  hill  is  abundant  and  of  the  best  kind. 

3.  In  regard  to  the  expenses  of  subsistence,  Amherst  offers  as  favor- 
able a  location  as  can  be  found  in  the  three  river  counties.  The  land 
is  generally  good,  and  well  cultivated  by  sober,  industrious  farmers, 
who  can  supply  the  officers  and  students  with  provisions  of  every  kind, 
at  as  low  prices  as  they  can  be  afforded  in  any  other  town.  The  town 
and  the  lands  adjacent  in  other  towns,  abound  with  wood,  and  fuel  may 
be  obtained  at  all  times,  on  as  favorable  terms,  as  in  any  town  proper 
for  such  an  institution.  And  we  apprehend,  that  both  provisions  and 
fuel  and  all  the  necessary  expenses  of  subsistence  for  officers  and  stu- 
dents, must  necessarily  be  lower  in  Amherst  than  in  the  shire  town  of 
either  of  the  counties.  Being  merely  an  agricultural  town,  the  expenses 
of  living  will  be  less  liable  to  be  enhanced  by  the  artificial  refinements 
of  more  gay  and  fashionable  life. 

4.  In  regard  to  the  advantages  for  moral  and  literary  improvement 
in  this  and  future  ages,  we  conceive  that  no  situation  can  be  found  in 
the  three  counties,  which  is  more  eligible  than  the  town  of  Amherst. 

It  is  agreed  by  all  good  judges  of  the  subject,  that  a  literary  institu- 
tion ought  not  to  be  situated  in  a  large  or  populous  town.  The  partic- 
ular extent  of  population  which  is  best  suited  to  accommodate  a  college, 
without  exposing  the  persons  attached  to  it  to  unnecessary  or  exorbitant 
expenses,  and  the  students  in  particular  to  the  danger  of  evil  examples 
and  of  extravagance  in  dress  and  other  expenses,  may  not  be  easily 
defined,  and  respecting  these  points,  there  may  be  a  difference  of  opin- 
ion. In  our  opinion,  a  college  should  not  be  located  in  a  town  which 
does,  or  hereafter  probably  will  consist  of  a  population,  which  shall  in- 
vite and  maintain  the  more  fashionable  expenses  and  amusements  of 
the  higher  classes  of  society  in  this  country  ;  and  which  of  course  must 
be  infected  with  the  vices  which  necessarily  prevail  among  the  lower 
orders  which  must  always  form  a  part  of  a  numerous  population  in  any 
town  of  fashionable  resort.  We  are  not  to  be  governed  in  our  opinions 
on  this  subject  by  the  present  state  of  the  towns  in  this  country.  We 
are  to  look  forward  to  the  state  of  them  in  future  ages.  From  facts 
which  have  already  taken  place,  we  may  form  a  tolerably  correct  judg- 
ment of  the  facts  that  will  hereafter  take  place. 

The  town  of  Amherst  must,  from  its  position,  forever  be  an  agricul- 
tural town.  It  can  be  neither  a  shire  town,  nor  a  commercial  or  manu- 
facturing town.  From  its  situation  with  regard  to  Connecticut  River, 
and  the  neighboring  towns,  it  can  not  be  the  center  of  a  great  commerce, 
and  its  streams  of  water  will  never  support  great  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments. Its  inhabitants  must  be  chiefly  laboring  farmers,  who,  dis- 
persed over  the  town  and  occupied  in  their  own  pursuits,  can  have  no 
particular  connection  with  the  students ;  of  course  no  enmity  will  prob- 
ably bring  them  into  collision,  and  produce  those  quarrels  and  riots 
which  have  frequently  disturbed  the  peace  of  some  other  colleges. 

If  it  should  be  said  that  such  a  town  affords  less  advantages  for  im- 
proving the  manners  of  the  students,  we  reply,  that  some  well-bred 

31 


242  ORIGIN    OF    AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS. 

gentlemen  will  always  be  attached  to  such  a  seminary,  and  others  may 
reside  in  the  neighborhood.  But  the  design  of  the  college  is  to  teach 
the  arts  and  sciences,  and  to  cultivate  the  mind,  rather  than  to  polish 
the  manners.  One  fourth  part  of  the  year  consists  of  vacations,  in 
which  the  students  may  visit  their  friends  and  mingle  with  the  world ; 
but  in  term-time  we  are  persuaded,  from  observation  and  experience, 
that  the  less  intercourse  they  have  with  the  world,  the  more  advanta- 
geously will  they  cultivate  both  the  head  and  the  heart.  And  it  may 
well  be  suggested,  that  the  situation  of  the  colleges  and  universities  of 
Europe,  in  cities  and  large  towns,  has  been  a  principal  cause  of  the 
depravity  and  infidelity  which  are  so  prevalent  among  the  higher  orders 
of  society  in  that  quarter  of  the  world,  and  whose  baleful  influence  has 
been  extended  to  the  higher  classes  of  society  in  this  country. 

From  all  the  considerations  above  recited,  and  from  every  view  which 
we  have  been  able  to  take  of  this  subject,  we  are  compelled  to  believe 
the  town  of  Amherst  offers  the  most  eligible  situation  for  a  college. 
In  all  respects,  the  situation  is  as  favorable  as  that  of  any  other  town ; 
and  in  several  particulars  it  possesses  advantages  which  are  not  to  be 
found  in  any  other  town  in  the  three  counties. 

To  the  considerations  already  enumerated,  we  would  subjoin  a  few 
other  observations. 

It  is  well  known,  or  must  be  admitted,  that  the  cheapness  of  a  colle- 
giate education  in  this  country  is  not  merely  favorable  to  an  extension 
of  it,  but  absolutely  necessary.  The  great  body  of  people  in  New 
England  consists  of  men  of  moderate  estates,  who  are  utterly  unable 
to  give  their  sons  an  expensive  education.  Already  are  the  expenses 
of  a  four  years'  education,  in  some  of  our  colleges  in  or  near  large 
towns,  so  great,  that  if  there  were  no  colleges  in  the  country  where 
education  is  less  expensive,  a  large  portion  of  young  men,  who  now 
receive  a  college  education,  would  be  utterly  precluded  from  that  ad- 
vantage. Great  numbers  of  men  can  afford  two  hundred  or  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  dollars  a  year,  who  can  not  afford  four  or  five  hundred. 
Now  let  it  be  considered  that  the  larger  part  of  the  men  who  constitute 
those  most  useful  classes — ministers  of  the  Gospel,  and  instructors  of 
youth  in  colleges,  academies  and  other  seminaries  of  learning,  are  the 
sons  of  the  yeomanry  of  the  country  ;  men  of  small  estates,  who,  if 
they  educate  their  sons  at  all,  must  educate  them  in  the  cheapest  man- 
ner that  the  country  affords.  A  course  of  liberal  education  is  already 
so  expensive  in  some  of  our  colleges,  that  were  there  no  other  means 
of  obtaining  an  education,  the  country  here  would  be  deprived  of  the 
necessary  supplies  of  ministers  and  teachers. 

This  is  not  all.  It  is  well  known  that  the  vast  western  and  southern 
states,  now  rapidly  settling,  depend  chiefly  on  New  England  for  minis- 
ters of  the  Gospel  and  teachers  of  seminaries,  and  the  wants  of  the 
settlements  can  not  be  fully  supplied.  This  is  then  a  matter  of  vast 
moment,  that  in  all  the  plans  of  education  adopted  in  New  England, 
all  possible  facilities  should  be  given  to  the  multiplication  of  men  in- 
tended for  literary,  moral,  and  religious  instructors.  To  this  purpose 
it  is  an  essential  prerequisite  that  the  means  of  education  should  be  as 
easy  and  as  accessible  as  possible  to  the  pious  and  well  disposed  sons 
of  our  yeomanry.     This  consideration  derives  additional  importance 


ORIGIN    OF    AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS.  243 

from  the  circumstance  that  great  numbers  of  young  men  destined  for 
these  employments  are  educated  by  charitable  contributions. 

We  deem  it  very  important  that  the  charitable  fund  of  fifty  thousand 
dollars  should  be  united  in  operation  with  Williams  College  ;  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons : 

1.  Because  the  money  will  produce  much  more  effect,  united  with 
the  College,  than  it  will  if  unconnected  with  it,  as  one  set  of  instructors 
will  answer  for  both. 

2.  Because  the  tuition  of  the  beneficiaries  on  this  fund  will  aid  the 
College  as  effectually  as  the  proper  fund  of  the  College.  Twenty  ben- 
eficiaries paying  twenty  dollars  each  for  tuition  annually,  or  $400,  are 
equal  to  a  fund  of  ^6,667,  and  more,  in  the  same  proportion. 

3.  Because  any  attempt  to  remove  the  location  of  this  fund  will  de- 
stroy it,  and  the  Christian  public  will  lose  the  benefit  of  it. 

4.  Because  the  two  institutions,  if  located  in  different  towns,  will  not 
only  produce  less  efl^ect,  but  may  be  in  collision. 

5.  Because  the  convention  of  clergy  and  laity  at  Amherst  last  Septem- 
ber manifested  a  desire  that  the  two  institutions  should  be  united. 

6.  Because  one  sixth  part  of  the  interest  of  the  charity  fund  is  re- 
served as  an  accumulating  fund,  on  the  principle  of  compound  interest. 
Of  course,  the  means  of  supporting  and  enlarging  the  usefulness  of 
Williams  College  will  be  continually  increasing. 

7.  Because  experience  and  facts  prove  that  funds  for  charitable  reli- 
gious purposes  in  this  country,  are  more  easily  augmented  than  the 
funds  of  a  mere  literary  institution.  Such  is  the  disposition  of  pious 
and  well  disposed  people  in  the  present  age,  to  encourage  the  education 
of  pious  youth  and  to  spread  the  Gospel,  that  multitudes  will  make 
donations  for  these  purposes,  who  will  not  give  their  money  to  a  mere 
classical  institution.  Hence  we  infer  that  a  connection  of  the  College 
with  this  charity  fund  will  essentially  promote  its  prosperity. 

N.  Webster,  1 

John  Fiske,  (  Committee  of  the  Trustees 

Edwards  Whipple,  j      of  Amherst  Academy. 
Nathaniel  Smith,    j 

The  foregoing  were  the  most  material  arguments  and  statements  pre- 
sented to  the  locating  committee,  in  favor  of  removing  the  college  to 
Amherst.  The  committee,  however,  were  unanimous  in  naming 
Northampton  as  the  most  suitable  place  for  the  institution. 

The  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy,  on  the  18th  day  of  November, 
1818,  appointed  Noah  Webster,  Esq.,  the  Eev.  John  Fiske,  the  Rev. 
Edwards  Whipple,  the  Rev.  Nathan  Perkins,  the  Rev.  Joshua  Crosby, 
the  Rev.  James  Taylor,  the  Rev.  Winthrop  Bailey,  Nathaniel  Smith, 
Samuel  F.  Dickinson,  and  Rufus  Graves,  Esquires,  a  committee  to  so- 
licit subscriptions  to  the  charitable  fund,  and  kXso  for  the  foundation  and 
support  of  a  college  to  be  connected  with  the  same,  as  recommended 
by  the  convention.  But  in  consequence  of  the  proceedings  of  the  cor- 
poration of  Williams  College,  in  resolving  to  remove  that  institution, 
and  in  appointing  a  committee  to  locate  it,  the  trustees  of  Amherst 
Academy  suspended  further  measures  in  relation  to  the  foundation  of 
A  cpUege,  until  jt^event  of  an  application  of  the  corporation  of  Wil- 


244  ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST   COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHITSETTS. 

liams  College  to  the  legislature,  for  an  act  authorizing  such  removal, 
should  be  known.  They  made  no  opposition  to  that  application,  and 
took  no  measure  to  defeat  it. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy,  July 
6,  1819,  a  committee  appointed  to  examine  the  subscriptions  to  the 
charity  fund,  reported  that  the  money  and  other  property  subscribed 
amounted,  at  a  fair  estimate,  to  fifty-one  thousand  four  hundred  and 
four  dollars. 

On  the  23d  day  of  June,  1819,  the  trustees  of  Williams  College 
published  a  printed  address  to  the  public,  assigning'  their  reasons  for 
proposing  to  remove  that  institution,  and  soliciting  donations  to  increase 
the  funds,  and  promote  its  prosperity  in  its  proposed  location  at  North- 
ampton.    One  paragraph  in  the  address  is  in  the  following  words. 

"  The  trustees,  highly  approving  the  object  of  the  charitable  institu- 
tion at  Amherst,  and  the  benevolence  which  has  influenced  so  many  to 
unite  in  contributing  to  the  very  important  object  of  educating  poor  and 
pious  young  men  for  the  ministry,  are  particularly  desirous  that  that 
should  be  so  united  with  the  college  at  Northampton,  and  the  college 
with  that,  that  contributions  to  either  should  \>e  conducive  to  the  good 
of  both,  and  so  form  an  institution  which  would  receive  the  united  pat- 
ronage of  all  the  friends  of  literature,  science,  and  religion." 

A  copy  of  this  address  was  sent  to  the  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy, 
inclosed  in  a  letter  from  the  president,  the  Rev.  Zephaniah  Swift  Moore, 
dated  July  1,  1819. 

To  this  letter  and  address  the  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy  return- 
ed the  following  answer.  The  vote  directing  it  to  be  sent,  is  dated 
August  18,  1819. 

To  the  Rev.  Zephaniah  Swift  Moore,  president  of  the  board  of  trustees 
of  Williams  College. 

Rev.  Sir, — The  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy  have  received  your 
letter  dated  July  1,  addressed  to  the  president  of  the  board,  inclosing 
the  address  of  the  trustees  of  Williams  College,  on  the  subject  of  its 
removal,  and  have  given  the  subject  of  it  their  deliberate  consideration. 
In  answer  to  the  queries  contained  in  your  letter,  we  would  remark 
that,  in  our  opinion,  a  union  between  the  college  and  the  charitable  in- 
stitution in  Amherst,  would  be  conducive  to  the  interest  of  literature, 
science,  and  religion,  in  the  western  section  of  Massachusetts.  The 
constitution  of  the  charitable  fund  opened  the  door  for  that  union,  and 
nothing  on  our  part,  we  believe,  has  been  wanting  to  accomplish  the 
object.  We  entertain  the  most  friendly  disposition  toward  Williams 
College,  and  shall  rejoice  in  its  prosperity,  although  we  see  not  at  pres- 
ent, how  a  union  between  the  college  and  the  charitable  institution  can 
be  effected  ;  yet  if  a  plan  could  be  devised  for  that  purpose,  not  incom- 
patible with  the  constitution  of  the  fund,  it  would  meet  our  most  cordial 
approbation.  In  behalf  of  the  board  of  trustees, 

David  Parsons,  President. 

RuFus  Graves,  Secretary. 

The  corporation  of  Williams  College  made  an  application  to  the 
legislature  of  Massachusetts  in  the  winter  of  the  year  1819-20,  for 


^  .  ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST    COLLEGE   IN    MASSACHITSETTS.  245 

*an*act  authorizing  them  to  remove  the  college  to  Northampton  ;  but  it 
failed  of  success.  In  consequence  of  this  failure,  the  trustees  of  Am- 
herst Academy  judged  that  the  way  was  open  for  them  to  proceed  in 
their  original  design,  and  put  in  operation  the  charity  fund  intrusted  to 
their  care.  Therefore  on  the  15th  day  of  March,  1820,  they  resolved, 
"  that  this  board  consider  it  their  duty  to  proceed  directly  to  carry  into 
effect  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  for  the  classical  education  of  in- 
digent pious  young  men,  'and  the  financier  is  hereby  directed  to  pro- 
ceed with  as  little  delay  as  possible  to  effect  a  settlement  with  subscri- 
bers, to  procure  notes  and  obligations  for  the  whole  amount  of  the  sub- 
scriptions, and  also  to  solicit  further  subscriptions  from  benevolent  per- 
sons, in  aid  of  this  great  charity,  and  for  erecting  the  necessary  buildings." 

At  the  same  meeting  the  Rev.  Experience  Porter,  Hezekiah  W. 
Strong,  and  Samuel  F.  Dickinson,  were  appointed  a  committee  to  form 
the  plan  of  a  building  for  the  use  of  the  charity  institution,  to  estimate 
the  expense  and  make  report,  and  also  to  solicit  subscriptions  for  erect- 
ing said  building.  At  the  same  meeting  they  directed  the  secretary  to 
notify  the  subscribers  to  the  fund  to  meet  at  the  academy  in  Amherst, 
on  the  second  Wednesday  of  May  then  next,  for  the  purpose  of  choos- 
ing overseers  of  the  fund,  agreeable  to  the  provisions  of  the  constitution. 

This  meeting  was  not  held  at  that  time,  and  the  appointment  of  over- 
seers did  not  take  place  till  August  following. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees.  May  10,  1820,  the  committee 
appointed  to  form  the  plan  of  a  building,  as  before  mentioned,  was  dis- 
charged, and  the  following  vote  was  passed. 

"  Voted,  That  Samuel  F.  Dickinson,  Hezekiah  W.  Strong,  and  Na- 
thaniel Smith,  Esquires,  Dr.  Rufus  Cowles  and  Lieut.  Enos  Baker,  be  a 
committee  to  secure  a  good  and  sufficient  title  to  the  ten  acres  of  land 
conditionally  conveyed  to  the  trustees  of  this  academy,  as  the  site  of 
said  institution,  by  the  late  Col.  Elijah  Dickinson,  and  for  the  special 
benefit  of  the  charity  fund  ;  to  digest  the  plan  of  a  suitable  building  for 
said  institution,  to  procure  subscriptions,  donations  or  contributions  for 
defraying  the  expense  thereof;  to  prepare  the  ground,  and  erect  the 
same  as  soon  as  the  necessary  means  can  be  furnished ;  the  location  to 
be  made  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  prudential  committee." 

At  this  meeting  it  was  resolved  further,  that  "  great  and  combined 
exertions  of  the  Christian  public  are  necessary  to  give  due  effect  to  the 
charitable  institution,"  and  the  Rev.  Joshua  Crosby,  Jonathan  Grout, 
James  Taylor,  Edwards  Whipple,  John  Fiske,  and  Joseph  Vaill,  were 
appointed  agents  to  make  applications  for  additional  funds,  and  for  con- 
tributions to  aid  in  erecting  suitable  buildings  for  the  accommodation  of 
students. 

The  committee  proceeded  to  execute  the  trust  committed  to  them, 
secured  a  title  to  the  land,  marked  out  the  ground  for  the  site  of  a 
building  of  a  hundred  feet  in  length,  and  invited  the  inhabitants  of  Am- 
herst, friendly  to  the  design,  to  contribute  labor  and  materials,  with  pro- 
visions for  the  workmen.  With  this  request,  the  inhabitants  of  Am- 
herst, friendly  to  the  institution,  and  a  few  from  Pelham  and  Leverett, 
most  cheerfully  complied.  The  stones  for  the  foundation  were  brought 
chiefly  from  Pelham,  by  gratuitous  labor,  and  provisions  for  the  work- 
men were  furnished  by  voluntary  contributions. 


246  ORIGIN    OF    AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN   MASSACHUSETTS.  ^ 

The  foundation  of  the  building  being  nearly  completed,  the  board  of 
trustees  met  on  the  8th  day  of  August,  1820.  Present,  Noah  Webster, 
Esq.,  vice  president.  Rev.  James  Taylor,  Rev.  Joshua  Crosby,  Rev. 
Daniel  A.  Clark,  Nathaniel  Smith,  Esq.,  Samuel  F.  Dickinson,  Esq., 
Rufus  Graves,  Esq. 

The  session  was  opened  by  prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Crosby,  and  this 
was  ordered  to  be  the  constant  practice  in  future. 

At  2  o'clock,  P.  M.,  on  the  9th  day  of  August,  1820,  the  board  met 
after  an  adjournment,  and  "  voted  that  this  board  will  proceed  immedi- 
ately to  lay  the  corner-stone  of  the  edifice  for  the  charitable  institution, 
and  that  the  Rev.  Joshua  Crosby  be  requested  to  open  the  ceremony 
with  prayer ;  that  the  Rev.  David  Parsons,  president  of  the  board,  be 
requested  to  perform  the  ceremony  of  laying  the  corner-stone  ;  and 
that  Noah  Webster,  Esq.,  vice  president,  be  requested  to  close  the  cere- 
monies at  the  foundation,  with  an  address.  Voted,  also,  that  after  the 
ceremonies,  the  Rev.  Daniel  A.  Clark  be  requested  to  preach  a  sermon, 
and  that  the  Rev.  E.  Porter  and  the  Rev.  J.  Grout,  be  requested  to  assist 
in  the  other  exercises." 

In  pursuance  of  this  vote,  the  trustees  proceeded  to  the  place,  and 
the  president  of  the  board,  with  appropriate  remarks,  laid  the  corner- 
stone at  the  northwestern  corner  of  the  building,  in  the  presence  of  a 
numerous  audience.  After  which,  the  vice  president,  standing  on  the 
same  corner-stone,  delivered  the  following  address. 

To  the  benefactors  of  the  Institution  to  he  founded  in  this  place, — 
We  are  assembled  this  day  to  lay  the  corner-stone  of  an  edifice,  de- 
signed for  the  accommodation  of  the  beneficiaries,  who  may  be  placed 
on  the  fund  which  your  benevolence  has  constituted  for  their  education 
in  classical  literature  and  the  sciences.  This  act  and  the  ceremonies 
of  the  day  will  witness  to  you  the  sincere  intentions,  and  ardent  desire 
of  the  board  of  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy,  to  carry  into  effect  the 
design  of  the  liberal  charity  which  you  liave  consecrated  to  the  advance- 
ment of  the  Christian  church.  That  they  have  not  sooner  commenced 
the  execution  of  the  trust  reposed  in  them,  by  the  constitution  of  the 
fund,  is  to  be  ascribed  wholly  to  considerations  of  prudence  and  expe- 
dience, arising  out  of  circumstances  over  which  they  had  no  control. 
If,  however,  this  delay  has  contributed  to  strengthen  the  cause,  by  re- 
moving obstacles  and  illuminating  the  path  of  duty,  we  are  confident 
that  the  patrons  of  the  institution  will  justify  the  board,  in  this  exercise 
of  their  discretion. 

The  object  of  this  institution,  that  of  educating  for  the  gospel  ministry 
young  men  in  indigent  circumstances,  but  of  hopeful  piety  and  prom- 
ising talents,  is  one  of  the  noblest  which  can  occupy  thp  attention  and 
claim  the  contributions  of  the  Christian  public.  It  is  to  second  the 
efforts  of  the  apostles  themselves,  in  extending  and  establishing  the  Re- 
deemer's empire — the  empire  of  truth.  It  is  to  aid  in  the  important 
work  of  raising  the  human  race  from  ignorance  and  debasement ;  to 
enlighten  their  minds  ;  to  exalt  their  character ;  and  to  teach  them  the 
way  to  happiness  and  to  glory.  Too  long  have  men  been  engaged  in 
the  barbarous  works  of  multiplying  the  miseries  of  human  life.  Too 
long  have  their  exertions  and  resources  been  devoted  to  war  and  plun- 


ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST   COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS.  247 

der ;  to  the  destruction  of  lives  and  property ;  to  the  ravage  of  cities  ; 
to  the  unnatural,  the  monstrous  employment  of  enslaving  and  degrading 
their  own  species.  Blessed  be  our  lot !  We  live  to  see  a  new  era  in 
the  history  of  man — an  era  when  reason  and  religion  begin  to  resume 
their  sway,  and  to  impress  the  heavenly  truth,  that  the  appropriate  bu- 
siness of  men,  is  to  imitate  the  Savior ;  to  serve  their  God  ;  and  bless 
their  fellow  men. 

Such  an  institution,  with  an  appropriate  destination,  in  which  the 
views  and  hopes,  the  liberality  and  prayers  of  an  extensive  Christian 
community,  may  be  concentrated,  seems  to  be  a  desideratum  in  our 
country  ;  and  it  is  believed,  will  command  the  respect,  and  receive  the 
patronage  of  the  public.  The  place  selected  for  the  seat  of  this  semi- 
nary, is  believed  to  be  peculiarly  well  adapted  to  secure  its  prosperity. 
It  is  to  be  situated  in  a  populous  country,  abounding  with  provisions  ; 
in  a  climate  remarkable  for  its  salubrity  ;  in  a  village  where  no  peculiar 
circumstances  exist  to  invite  dissipation  and  extravagant  expenditures ; 
surrounded  by  a  well  cultivated  territory,  inhabited  by  people,  whose 
moral,  religious  and  literary  habits,  dispose  them  to  cherish  the  cultiva- 
tion of  the  mind,  and  the  propagation  of  evangelical  truth,  while  the  ex- 
tensive prospect  and  diversified  scenery,  presented  to  the  eye  from  this 
elevation,  is  adapted  by  nature  and  by  art,  to  delight  the  student,  and  to 
furnish,  to  piety,  perpetual  sources  of  contemplation  and  improvement. 

In  such  a  situation,  and  under  the  patronage  of  a  religious  communi- 
ty, can  this  institution  fail  of  success  ?  Small,  indeed,  are  its  begin- 
nings, and  feeble  the  human  instruments  by  which  it  is  to  be  raised 
and  supported.  And  more,  it  encounters  opposition.  But  opposition 
to  a  good  cause  must  stimulate  exertion,  and  contribute  to  ultimate  suc- 
cess. And  why  should  it  be  opposed  ?  It  has  no  competitor,  it  inter- 
feres essentially  with  no  other  seminary,  for  none  exists  of  a  similar 
character.  Will  not  New  England  supply  it  with  students  ?  Let  the 
numerous  applications  to  the  education  societies,  beyond  their  means, 
furnish  the  answer.  Are  not  well  educated  ministers  of  the  gospel 
wanted,  in  great  numbers,  to  repair  the  waste  places  of  our  old  settle- 
ments ;  to  supply  a  numerous  destitute  population  in  the  new  states,  and 
to  carry  the  gospel  to  millions  of  the  human  race,  who  are  perishing  in 
ignorance  and  barbarism  .''  Let  the  continual  and  pressing  demands 
on  our  theological  institutions,  answer  this  question. 

But  can  the  means  be  found  to  erect  the  necessary  buildings,  and  to 
endow  the  institution  with  funds  that  shall  raise  it  to  reputation  and  use- 
fulness .''  Let  the  doubts  on  this  subject  be  dissipated  by  considering 
the  success  which  has  hitherto  attended  every  benevolent  institution, 
designed  to  enlarge  the  bounds  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom.  The  great 
Head  of  the  church  who  commanded  his  disciples  to  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature,  who  promised  to  be  with  them,  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  can  not  forsake  his  own  cause,  nor  be  unfaithful  to  his  promise. 
If  this  institution  is  commenced  with  pious  motives,  and  adapted  to  ad- 
vance the  moral  and  religious  interests  of  men,  it  is  the  duty  of  Chris- 
tians to  lend  their  aid  to  its  establishment  and  support,  in  humble  confi- 
dence that  a  blessing  will  attend  their  sacrifices  and  their  labors.  No 
sordid  views  should  infect  the  prosecution  of  the  plan ;  no  selfish  pas- 
sions, no  local  interests,  should  be  pernuUgd  to  interrupt  the  union  and 


248  ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST   COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS. 

cooperation  of  the  friends  of  Christ.  Minds,  elevated  with  evangelical 
hopes  and  views,  will  discard,  as  baise  and  dishonorable,  all  reference 
to  personal  or  local  advantages,  and  consider  this  institution  as  intended 
to  embrace,  in  its  effects,  the  whole  community  of  man. 

And  should  success  attend  this  establishment,  how  delightful  to  the 
friend  of  religion  must  be  the  thought,  that  he  has  thrown  his  mite  into 
this  treasury  of  the  Lord  !  With  what  satisfaction  will  the  sons  of  its 
benefactors  hereafter  hear  it  related,  that  a  missionary,  educated  by 
their  fathers'  charity,  has  planted  a  church  of  Christ  on  the  burning 
sands  of  Africa,  or  in  the  cheerless  wilds  of  Siberia — that  he  has  been 
the  instrument  of  converting  a  family,  a  province,  perhaps  a  kingdom 
of  pagans,  and  bringing  them  within  the  pale  of  the  Christian  church  ! 
Who  that  duly  appreciates  the  influence  of  the  gospel  in  civilizing  the 
savage,  and  in  preventing  or  restraining  the  disorders  of  civilized  soci- 
ety, can  hesitate  a  moment,  even  on  motives  of  temporal  advantage, 
to  enrol  his  name  among  the  benefactors  of  such  an  institution  !  No, 
my  friends ;  the  man  who  loves  peace  and  security  in  this  life,  must 
lend  his  aid  to  the  propagation  of  the  gospel,  and  contribute  to  give  effi- 
cacy to  its  principles.  The  gospel  only  can  convert  swords  into  plow- 
shares and  spears  into  pruning  hooks — the  gospel  only  can  supersede 
the  necessity  of  bolts  and  bars — the  gospel  only  can  dispeople  the 
state  prison  and  the  penitentiary ! 

Let  us  then  take  courage  !  The  design  is  unquestionably  good,  and 
its  success  must  be  certain.  Small  efforts  combined  and  continued,  can 
not  fail  to  produce  the  desired  effect,  and  realize  the  hopes  of  its  foun- 
ders. Prudence  and  integrity  will  subdue  opposition,  and  invite  coop- 
eration ;  perseverance  will  bring  to  our  aid  new  accessions  of  strength, 
and  a  thousand  small  streams  of  charity  from  unexpected  sources,  will 
flow  into  the  common  current  of  benevolence  which  is  to  water  and  re- 
fresh this  nursery  of  gospel  ministers.  This  institution  will  grow  and 
flourish,  and  become  auxiliary  to  a  thousand  associations  which  Chris- 
tian philanthropy  has  formed,  to  reclaim  and  evangelize  the  miserable 
children  of  Adam.  Charity  will  nourish,  protect  and  augment  what 
charity  has  begun  ;  and  the  prayers  of  piety  will  invite  blessings  on  this 
humble  effort  to  diffuse  the  gospel  of  peace. 

May  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  to  whose  service  this  edifice  is  to 
be  consecrated,  multiply  the  benefactors  of  the  institution,  and  crown 
their  charities  with  his  loving  kindness  and  tender  mercy  !  And  may 
the  benefits  of  their  benevolence,  in  diffusing  truth,  and  exterminating 
idolatry  and  sin,  be  as  extensive  as  the  human  family,  and  as  durable 
as  time ! 

After  the  address,  the  trustees  and  the  spectators  repaired  immediate- 
ly to  the  church,  where  the  Rev.  Mr.  Clark  delivered  an  appropriate 
discourse  from  2  Kings,  vi,  1 — 3,  which  was  published  with  the  title, 
"  A  plea  for  a  miserable  world." 

On  the  following  day,  the  trustees  directed  the  secretary  to  notify 
Henry  Gray,  Esq.,  of  Boston,  Gen.  Salem  Town,  Jr.,  of  Charlton,  the 
Rev.  Theophilus  Packard,  of  Shelburne,  the  Rev,  Thomas  Snell,  of 
North  Brookfield,  the  Rev.  Luther  Sheldon,  of  Easton,  the  Rev.  Heraan 
Humphrey,  of  Pittsfield,  and  Hezekiah  W.  Strong,  Esq.,  of  Amherst, 


ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS.  249 

of  their  election  by  the  subscribers  to  the  charity  fund,  to  be  overseers 
of  that  fund. 

The  trustees  also  voted  that  their  thanks  be  given  to  Noah  Webster, 
Esq.,  for  his  address,  and  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Clark,  for  his  sermon,  and 
requested  a  copy  of  each  for  publication. 

At  this  meeting  also  the  trustees  voted  to  request  a  number  of  res- 
pectable gentlemen  residing  in  different  parts  of  the  United  States,  to 
act  with  the  board  as  correspondents,  in  promoting  the  interest  of  the 
institution.  More  than  twenty  were  named  for  this  purpose ;  but  it  is 
not  known  that  this  measure  produced  any  valuable  effect. 

At  the  same  meeting  Dr.  David  Parsons  resigned  his  seat  in  the 
board  of  trustees,  and  Noah  Webster,  Esq.,  was  elected  president  of 
the  board. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees,  September  7,  1820,  a  commit- 
tee was  appointed  to  correspond  with  the  American  Education  Society, 
on  the  subject  of  the  terms  on  which  the  board  might  co-operate  with 
that  society  in  the  education  of  their  beneficiaries. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  board,  November  8th,  1820,  the  trustees  ap- 
pointed John  Leland,  Esq.  as  their  agent  to  receive  all  donations  made 
for  the  benefit  of  the  charity  institution,  other  than  those  made  to  the 
permanent  fund.  They  passed  a  vote  also  authorizing  the  prudential 
committee  to  receive  into  the  Academy,  as  beneficiaries  from  education 
societies  or  elsewhere,  charity  students  not  exceeding  twenty. 

At  this  meeting  also  the  trustees  resolved  to  establish  in  the  charity 
institution  three  professorships,  one  in  mathematics  and  natural  philo- 
sophy, one  in  rhetoric  and  one  in  the  learned  languages.  A  committee 
was  appointed  to  solicit  and  obtain  the  necessary  funds  to  support  them. 

Notwithstanding  the  building  committee  had  no  funds  for  erecting  the 
building,  not  even  a  cent,  except  what  were  to  be  derived  from  gratuities 
in  labor,  materials  and  provisions,  yet  they  prosecuted  the  work  with 
untiring  diligence.  Repeatedly,  during  the  progress  of  the  work,  their 
means  were  exhausted,  and  they  were  obliged  to  notify  the  president  of 
the  board  that  they  could  proceed  no  further  without  aid.  On  these  oc- 
casions, the  president  called  together  the  trustees  or  a  number  of  them, 
who,  by  subscriptions  of  their  own  and  by  renewed  solicitations  for 
voluntary  contributions,  enabled  the  committee  to  prosecute  the  work. 
And  such  were  the  exertions  of  the  board,  of  the  committee  and  of  the 
friends  of  the  institution,  that  on  the  ninetieth  day  from  the  laying  of  the 
corner-stone,  the  roof-timbers  were  erected  on  the  building. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  board  in  November,  the  trustees  voted  their 
thanks  to  the  building  committee,  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  town  of  Am- 
herst and  of  the  neighboring  towns,  and  to  all  who  had  aided  in  the 
great  work,  for  their  noble  exertions  and  generous  liberality  in  contrib- 
uting labor,  materials,  money  and  provisions  toward  erecting  a  build- 
ing for  the  charity  institution.* 

But  the  interior  of  the  building  was  not  yet  finished  ;  and  at  a  meet- 
ing of  the  board,  February  13,  1821,  a  committee  of  four  persons, 
Rev.  Mr.  Porter,  Rev.  Mr.  Clark,  Rev.  Mr.  Whipple  and  Rev.  Mr.  Vaill, 

*  Occasional  contributions  from  individuals  in  Hadley  and  Belchertown  were 
mceived..  .,  . 

32 


250  ORIGIN    OF    AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS. 

were  appointed  as  agents  to  make  application  to  evangelical  associations 
to  combine  their  efforts  to  carry  into  effect  the  design  of  this  institution ; 
to  form  societies  and  to  invite  the  aid  of  societies  already  formed  for 
charitable  purposes,  and  in  short,  to  procure  donations  for  enlarging 
the  funds  and  maintaining  the  professorships. 

At  this  meeting  the  Rev.  Heman  Humphrey,  of  Pittsfield,  was  re- 
quested to  deliver  a  discourse  before  the  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy 
at  their  meeting  in  May,  then  next ;  and  the  Rev.  Luther  Sheldon  was 
appointed  his  substitute. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy  on  the  8th  day  of 
May,  1821,  it  was 

"  Voted,  unanimously,  that  the  Rev.  Zephaniah  Swift  Moore,  be  and 
he  is  hereby  elected  president  of  the  charity  institution  in  this  town." 

"  Voted,  that  the  permanent  salary  of  the  president  of  this  institution 
for  his  services  as  president  and  professor  of  theology  and  of  moral 
philosophy,  shall  be  twelve  hundred  dollars,  and  that  he  be  entitled  to 
the  usual  perquisites." 

The  trustees  at  the  same  meeting  determined  to  build  a  house  for  the 
president,  provided  they  could  procure  donations  of  money,  materials 
and  labor.  Also  that  the  first  term  of  study  in  the  charity  institution 
should  commence  on  the  third  Wednesday  in  September,  then  next. 
They  also  voted  an  address  of  thanks  to  the  Rev.  Heman  Humphrey, 
for  his  very  appropriate  and  useful  sermon  delivered  on  the  9th  instant. 

At  this  meeting,  also,  the  trustees  passed  a  vote  prohibiting  the  stu- 
dents from  drinking  ardent  spirits  or  wine,  or  any  liquor  of  which  ardent 
spirits  or  wine  should  be  the  principal  ingredient,  at  any  inn,  tavern  or 
shop,  or  to  keep  ardent  spirits  or  wine  in  their  rooms,  or  at  any  time  to 
indulge  in  them,  under  the  penalty  of  admonition  for  the  first  offense, 
and  for  the  second  offense  of  admonition  or  expulsion,  according  to  the 
nature  and  aggravation  of  the  offense,  at  the  discretion  of  the  prudential 
committee. 

On  the  9th  of  May,  1821,  the  votes  of  the  board  of  trustees  appoint- 
ing the  Rev.  Z.  S.  Moore  president  of  the  charity  institution,  and  grant- 
ing him  a  permanent  salary,  were  sent  by  the  president  of  the  board  to 
that  gentleman  at  Williamstown.  To  these  communications  President 
Moore  returned  the  following  answer. 

To  the  President  and  Trustees  of  Amherst  Academy. 

Gentlemen — 1  received  from  the  president  of  your  board,  a  copy  of 
your  vote  of  the  8th  May,  1821,  appointing  me  to  preside  over  the 
charity  institution  in  Amherst,  and  other  votes  relating  to  the  same  sub- 
ject, attested  by  the  secretary.  I  have  attended  to  the  subject  with  ear- 
nest desire,  so  far  as  I  know  my  own  heart,  that  my  decision  might  be 
such  as  God  would  approve.  Previous  to  receiving  any  notice  of  your 
appointment,  I  had  made  up  my  mind  to  resign  my  offices  in  this  col- 
lege at  the  next  commencement.  Providence  had  clearly  made  it  con- 
sistent with  my  duty  to  leave  then,  if  not  sooner.  I  have  ascertained, 
so  far  as  I  have  had  opportunity,  the  opinion  of  those  who  are  the 
friends  of  evangelical  truth,  with  respect  to  the  necessity,  prospects 
and  usefulness  of  such  an  institution  as  that  contemplated  at  Amherst. 
I  have  much  reason  to  believe  there  is  extensively  an  agreement  on  this 


ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST   COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS.  251 

subject.  In  my  own  opinion,  no  object  has  higher  claims  on  the  charity 
and  benevolent  efforts  of  the  Christian  community,  than  the  educa- 
tion of  pious  young  men  for  the  gospel  ministry.  This  classical 
education  should  be  thorough,  and  I  should  be  wholly  averse  to  becom- 
ing united  with  any  institution  which  professes  to  give  a  classical  edu- 
cation inferior  to  that  given  in  any  of  the  colleges  in  New  England. 
On  this  subject  I  am  assured  your  opinion  is  the  same  as  my  own,  and 
that  you  are  determined  that  the  course  of  study  in  the  institution  to 
which  you  have  invited  me,  shall  not  be  inferior  to  that  in  the  colleges 
in  New  England.  I  am  also  assured  that  you  will  make  provision  for 
the  admission  of  those  who  are  not  indigent,  and  may  wish  to  obtain  a 
classical  education  in  the  institution. 

After  such  deliberation,  and  such  attention  to  the  subject  as  I  sup- 
posed its  importance  demanded,  I  have  concluded  to  accept  your  ap- 
pointment to  the  presidency  of  the  charity  institution  in  Amherst,  and 
I  do  hereby  manifest  my  acceptance  of  the  same. 

I  shall  resign  my  offices  in  this  college  at  the  next  commencement, 
if  not  sooner,  after  which  I  shall  consider  myself  devoted  to  the  inter- 
ests of  the  institution  intrusted  to  your  care. 

May  God  continue  to  bless  your  efforts  to  build  up  an  institution, 
which,  I  trust,  he  designs,  in  his  wise  and  gracious  providence,  to  make 
eminently  useful  in  promoting  the  interests  of  literature  and  science,  and 
particularly  in  promoting  the  interests  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom, 
which,  by  his  sure  promise,  is  one  day  to  be  extended,  with  all  its 
blessings  of  peace,  pardon  and  salvation  to  all  the  nations  that  dwell  on 
the  face  of  the  earth.     I  am,  gentlemen,  very  respectfully  yours, 

Zeph.  Swift  Moore. 
Williams  College,  June  12, 1821. 

On  the  same  day  President  Moore  addressed  a  letter  to  Noah  Web- 
ster, Esq.  president  of  the  board  of  trustees  of  Amherst  Academy,  in 
which  he  states,  among  other  things,  the  doubts  he  had  entertained  re- 
specting the  expediency  of  his  accepting  the  appointment.  "  I  think," 
he  wrote,  "  I  have  decided  right.  I  know  it  will  require  much  effort  to 
make  the  institution  in  Amherst  what  it  ought  to  be.  There  will  proba- 
bly be  many  difficulties  to  encounter.  But  the  object  is  an  important 
one,  and  merits  the  efforts  and  self-denial  and  the  prayers  of  all  the 
friends  of  Zion." 

On  the  thirteenth  day  of  June,  1821,  the  trustees  of  Amherst  Acad- 
emy elected  the  Rev.  Gamaliel  S.  Olds,  to  be  professor  of  mathematics 
and  natural  philosophy,  in  the  collegiate  charity  institution  ;  and  Joseph 
Estabrook  to  be  professor  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  languages. 

At  the  same  meeting,  the  board  voted  that  persons  wishing  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  charity  fund,  as  beneficiaries,  should  be  under  the 
patronage  of  some  education  society  or  other  respectable  association, 
which  should  furnish  to  each  beneficiary  a  part  of  his  support,  amount- 
ing at  least  to  one  dollar  a  week,  for  which  he  was  to  be  furnished  with 
board  and  tuition.  They  required  also  that  every  applicant  should  pro« 
duce,  to  the  examining  committee,  satisfactory  evidence  of  his  indi- 
gence, piety  and  promising  talents. 


252  ORIGIN    OF   AMHEKST   COLLEGE   IN    MASSACHtTSETTS. 

The  trustees  voted  also  that  the  preparatory  studies  or  qualifications 
of  candidates  for  admission  to  the  collegiate  institution,  and  the  course 
of  studies  to  be  pursued  during  the  four  years  of  membership,  should 
be  the  same  as  those  established  in  Yale  College, 

At  this  session  of  the  board,  it  was  determined  that  the  president  and 
professors  of  the  collegiate  charity  institution  should  be  inaugurated, 
and  the  college  edifice  dedicated,  with  suitable  religious  services,  on  the 
Tuesday  next  preceding  the  third  Wednesday  of  September  next,  and 
that  Professor  Stuart,  of  Andover,  be  invited  to  pi'each  the  dedication 
sermon.  In  case  of  his  declining,  the  committee  were  authorized  to 
request  the  Rev.  Mr.  Osgood  of  Springfield  to  perform  that  service. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees,  4^ugust  6,  1821,  the  Rev.  Jo- 
nas King  was  elected  to  be  professor  of  oriental  languages  in  the  col- 
legiate institution.  [Mr.  King  soon  after  went  to  Greece,  and  declined 
accepting  the  appointment.] 

At  a  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees,  September  18,  1821,  the  Rev. 
Zephaniah  S.  Moore,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Thomas  Snell,  and  Rev.  Daniel  A. 
Clark  were  appointed  a  committee  to  report  a  confession  of  faith  to  be 
subscribed  by  the  president  and  professors  of  the  collegiate  institution, 
previous  to  their  entering  on  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices.* 
This  service  was  performed. 

The  trustees  then  proceeded  to  the  inauguration  of  the  president, 
and  Professor  Estabrook  ;  Professor  Olds  not  being  present.  The  cer- 
emonies were  performed  in  the  parish  church,  and  were  introduced  by 
the  following  observations  of  Noah  Webster,  president  of  the  board  of 
trustees. 

"  A  number  of  charitable  citizens  of  this  state,  having  by  donations 
constituted  a  fund  for  the  education  of  pious  young  men  for  the  gospel 
ministry,  and  having  committed  that  fund  to  the  management  of  the 
board  of  trustees  of  the  academy  in  this  town,  until  an  act  of  incorpo- 
ration shall  be  obtained,  the  board,  in  pursuance  of  their  powers  and  in 
execution  of  their  trust,  have  erected  a  college  edifice,  for  the  accom- 
modation of  students,  and  have  appointed  a  president  and  professors, 
qualified  to  give  them  a  classical  education.  And  in  conformity  to  the 
recommendation  of  a  respectable  number  of  the  clergy  and  laity  of 
this  and  the  neighboring  counties,  convened  in  this  town  in  September, 
1818,  the  board  propose  to  annex  to  this  institution  a  college,  for  the 
education  of  young  men  who  have  the  means  of  defraying  their  ex- 
penses. 

As  it  is  the  duty  of  men,  on  all  occasions,  to  acknowledge  their  de- 
pendence on  divine  aid  for  success  in  their  lawful  enterprises ;  so  it  is 
peculiarly  proper  that  an  undertaking  which  has,  for  its  special  object, 
the  promotion  of  the  Christian  religion,  should  be  commended  to  the 
favor  and  protection  of  the  great  Head  of  the  church.  To  his  service 
is  the  charity  fund  consecrated  by  the  donors,  and  to  him  is  the  edifice 
now  erected  to  be,  at  this  time  solemnly  dedicated." 

Then  followed  prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Crosby  of  Enfield,  Mass.,  and 
a  sermon  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Leland  of  Charleston,  S.  C,  who  was  on  a 

*  The  rule,  requiring  the  president  and  professors  to  subscribe  a  confession  of 
faith,  has  been  long  since  repealed. 


ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN   MASSACHUSETTS.  253 

visit  to  his  father,  then  resident  in  Amherst — Prof.  Stuart  having,  for 
special  reasons,  declined  to  preach  on  that  occasion ;  and  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Osgood  not  being  present. 

The  president  of  the  board  of  trustees  then  proceeded : — "  The  board 
of  trustees  have  elected  the  Rev.  Zephaniah  Swift  Moore,  to  be  presi- 
dent of  the  collegiate  institution  in  this  town,  and  the  president  is  ex  of- 
ficio professor  of  theology  and  moral  philosophy.  They  have  also 
elected  the  Rev.  Gamaliel  S.  Olds,  to  be  professor  of  mathematics  and 
natural  philosophy,  and  Mr.  Joseph  Estabrook  to  be  professor  of  the 
Greek  and  Latin  languages  in  the  same  institution.  Mr.  Olds  is  not 
present,  but  he  has  accepted  his  appointment."  Then  addressing  Dr. 
Moore,  the  president  asked  him  whether  he  then  publicly  manifested 
his  acceptance  of  the  office  of  president  of  the  collegiate  institution  in 
Amherst.  Dr.  Moore  answered  in  the  affirmative.  The  president  then 
asked  Mr.  Estabrook  whether  he  publicly  manifested  his  acceptance 
of  the  office  of  professor  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  languages  in  the  colle- 
giate institution.     Mr.  Estabrook  answered  in  the  affirmative. 

The  confession  of  faith  was  then  read  and  the  gentlemen  assented  to 
it.  The  president  of  the  board  then  proceeded  : — "  Then  in  behalf  of 
the  board  of  trustees  and  by  their  authority,  I  publicly  announce  that 
you,  Zephaniah  Swift  Moore,  are  constituted  president  of  the  collegiate 
institution  in  this  town,  and  by  the  same  authority,  you  are  invested 
with  the  power  of  superintending,  instructing  and  governing  the  students 
according  to  your  best  discretion,  and  according  to  the  statutes  and  reg- 
ulations that  are  or  may  be  established  for  these  purposes.  And  I  fur- 
ther declare  that  you,  Joseph  Estabrook,  are,  by  the  same  authority, 
constituted  professor  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  languages  in  the  same 
seminary,  with  power  to  assist  the  president  in  the  instruction  of  the 
students,  and  in  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  institution. 

"  Sensible  of  the  difficulties  which  will  attend  a  faithful  and  discreet 
discharge  of  your  arduous  duties ;  feeling  their  own  responsibility,  and 
solicitous  to  promote  the  best  interests  of  the  seminary  ;  the  board  of 
trustees  will  cheerfully  cooperate  with  you,  gentlemen,  in  such  meas- 
ures as  circumstances  may  demand  or  prudence  dictate,  for  giving  ef- 
fect to  the  regulations  prescribed  ;  and  will  assist  in  devising  the  best 
means  for  elevating  the  character  and  extending  the  usefulness  of  the 
institution. 

"  Most  devoutly  and  affectionately,  dear  sirs,  do  we  commend  you  to 
the  holy  guidance  and  protection  of  the  Supreme  Head  of  the  church, 
to  whose  service  this  institution  is  consecrated.  Most  earnestly  do  we 
pray  that  the  blessing  of  heaven  may  accompany  your  labors,  and  crown 
them  with  success.  Under  your  pious  care,  diligent  instruction,  and 
prudent  government,  may  this  infant  seminary  commend  itself  to  the 
affections  and  respect  of  the  community  ;  while  the  fostering  patronage 
of  the  Christian  public,  shall  raise  it  to  distinction  among  the  literary 
institutions  of  the  American  republic. 

"  By  your  precepts  and  example,  may  virtue  be  honored  and  piety 
encouraged  among  the  youth  of  the  seminary  ;  while  every  species  of 
immorality  shall  be  discountenanced  and  repressed.  May  your  instruc- 
tions enlarge  the  sphere  of  intellectual  improvement,  and  circumscribe 
the  dominion  of  error.     In  yonder  edifice  may  the  youth  of  America, 


ORIGIN    OF   AMHERST    COLLEGE    IN    MASSACHUSETTS. 

be  richly  furnished  with  the  science  and  erudition  which  shall  qualify 
them  for  eminent  usefulness  in  church  and  state.  There  may  they  be 
instructed  in  the  principles  of  our  holy  religion,  and  armed  with  forti- 
tude and  grace,  to  defend  and  maintain  its  doctrines  in  their  apostolic 
purity.  And  while  your  labors  contribute  to  exalt  the  moral,  religious 
and  literary  character  of  your  own  country,  may  there  issue  from  this 
seminary  some  beams  of  the  light  of  civilization  and  of  heavenly  truth, 
to  illuminate  the  '  dark  places  of  the  earth  which  are  full  of  the  habita« 
tions  of  cruelty.'  Here  may  a  flame  of  holy  zeal  be  enkindled  in  the 
breasts  of  young  Christians,  which  shall  glow  with  inextinguishable  ardor, 
and  animate  them  with  courage  to  hazard  all  temporal  enjoyments  and 
life  itself,  in  bearing  the  message  of  redeeming  love  to  an  ignorant  and 
guilty  world.  And  when  your  labors  on  earth  shall  have  ceased,  may 
it  be  your  everlasting  joy,  that  you  have  been  the  instruments  of  pre- 
paring many  souls  to  join  that  great  multitude  which  no  man  can  num- 
ber, whose  blissful  employment  it  shall  be  to  ascribe  salvation  to  him 
that  sitteth  on  the  throne  and  to  the  lamb  forever." 

On  the  following  day,  Sept.  19,  Noah  Webster  resigned  his  seat  in 
the  board  of  trustees,  and  Dr.  Moore  was  elected  a  member  and  presi- 
dent of  the  board,  to  supply  his  place. 


255 


CHAPTER  -X. 

AN    ADDRESS    BEFORE    THE    AGRICULTURAL    SOCIE- 
TY   IN    NORTHAMPTON,    OCTOBER   14,    1818. 

In  the  history  of  the  creation,  we  are  informed  that  "  God  made  ev- 
ery plant  of  the  field,  before  it  was  in  the  earth,  and  every  herb  of  the 
field,  before  it  grew  ;  for  Jehovah  God  had  not  caused  it  to  rain  on  the 
earth,  and  there  was  not  a  man  to  till  the  ground  ;"  but  after  man  was 
created,  God  planted  a  garden  in  Eden,  and  there  he  placed  the  man, 
"  to  dress  it,  and  to  keep  it.''''  From  these  passages  of  sacred  history, 
we  learn,  that  antecedent  to  the  apostasy,  and  by  divine  appointment, 
agriculture  was  assigned  to  man  as  his  proper  occupation. 

In  conformity  with  the  divine  purpose,  in  this  destination  of  man,  the 
upper  stratum  of  the  earth,  was,  by  the  Creator,  fitted  for  the  produc- 
tion of  plants.  The  soil,  which  covers  the  greatest  part  of  the  globe, 
though  diversified  in  its  constituent  materials,  its  qualities,  depth,  and 
consistence,  is  generally  composed  of  very  fine  particles,  which  render 
it  permeable  by  water,  and  capable  of  containing  the  greatest  quantity 
of  it :  at  the  same  time,  though  so  friable,  as  to  be  easily  pulverized  by 
instruments  of  husbandry,  and  so  loose  as  to  be  pervious  to  the  roots 
of  plants  ;  it  is  sufficiently  compact  to  sustain  herbs,  shrubs,  and  even 
trees,  in  an  erect  position. 

As  the  cultivation  of  the  earth  was  the  first  business  assigned  to  man, 
so  of  all  his  temporal  concerns,  it  is  the  most  important  and  necessary ; 
for  the  productions  of  the  earth  furnish  almost  all  the  materials  of  food 
and  clothing.  Observations  on  the  savage  life  will  inform  us,  how  small 
a  population  the  spontaneous  produce  of  the  earth  will  support.  Even 
the  rude  natives  of  America,  few  and  scattered  as  they  are,  depend  on 
tillage  for  a  part  of  their  means  of  subsistence  ;  and  the  wild  animals, 
which  supply  no  small  portion  of  their  food  and  clothing,  derive  their 
nourishment  from  the  productions  of  the  earth.  The  produce  of  seas, 
rivers,  and  lakes,  whatever  may  be  the  amount,  must  always  constitute 
a  small  comparative  portion  of  the  food  of  a  well  peopled  country,  and 
no  part  of  the  food  of  domestic  animals. 

Agriculture  then  is  essential  to  the  support  of  a  dense  population.  It 
supplies  food  for  men  and  their  domestic  animals,  and  the  materials  of 
manufactures  ;  and  the  surplus,  beyond  the  necessary  consumption  of 
a  country,  furnishes  the  means  of  commerce,  and  becomes  a  source  of 
wealth.  Hence,  the  more  productive  the  earth  is  rendered  by  cultiva- 
tion, the  more  inhabitants  and  domestic  animals  may  be  subsisted  on  a 
given  extent  of  territory ;  and  the  greater  is  the  wealth  and  strength  of 
a  nation. 

Nor  is  the  cultivation  of  the  earth  less  favorable  to  the  health  and 
longevity  of  the  human  species.  As  a  general  remark,  it  may  be  af- 
firmed, that  the  labors  of  the  husbandman  are  better  adapted,  than  any 
other  labor  or  employment,  to  give  strength  and  firmness  to  all  parts  of 


^1^  ADDRESS    ON   AGKICULTURE. 

the  human  body,  by  calling  into  action  and  keeping  in  motion  the  vari- 
ous limbs  and  muscles,  without  an  undue  pressure  on  any  particular 
part ;  thus  promoting  equally  the  circulation  of  the  blood  and  the  various 
secretions  essential  to  health.  Excess  of  labor  will,  in  this,  as  in  every 
other  occupation,  impair  health,  and  shorten  life  or  render  it  uncom- 
fortable ;  but  in  general,  the  greatest  portion  of  sound  health,  and  the 
most  robust  men,  the  strength  and  defense  of  a  nation,  are  found  among 
the  cultivators  of  the  earth. 

Equally  well  adapted  is  the  business  of  the  farmer  to  enlarge  and 
invigorate  the  intellectual  faculties,  and  to  generate  a  spirit  of  inde- 
pendence favorable  to  civil  and  political  liberty.  This  is  particularly 
the  fact  in  a  country  where  the  cultivators  are  proprietors  of  the  soil. 
Immense  is  the  difference  in  the  exertion  and  improvement  of  the  mental 
faculties,  between  those  who  labor  for  themselves,  and  those  who  labor 
for  others.  The  very  ownership  of  property  tends  to  expand  the  mind, 
and  give  it  a  tone  of  firmness  and  independence  ;  while  the  prospect  of 
increasing  the  value  of  property,  and  enjoying  the  fruits  of  labor,  calls 
into  action  more  vigorous  exertion,  more  enterprise,  and  more  inven- 
tion. At  the  same  time,  the  possession  of  the  title  to  land  attaches  a 
man  to  the  country  in  which  he  is  a  freeholder,  and  binds  him  to  the 
government  and  laws  by  which  his  person  and  his  property  are  pro- 
tected. 

Nor  ought  we  to  forget,  in  this  enumeration  of  the  advantages  of  ag- 
riculture, that  this  employment  is  peculiarly  suited  to  the  preservation 
of  morals  in  a  community.  The  sequestered  situation  of  the  husband- 
man, occupied  daily  on  his  farm,  remote  from  scenes  of  vice  and  dis- 
sipation, secures  him,  in  a  great  degree,  from  the  contagion  of  evil 
examples,  and  from  many  temptations  to  vice,  which  large  associations 
of  people  present,  to  seduce  men  from  their  duty.  And  if  the  agri- 
cultural state  of  society  does  not  exhibit  more  positive  virtue  and  excel- 
lence than  any  other,  it  supplies  fewer  instances  of  atrocious  crimes 
and  deep  depravity.  Nor  is  it  less  true,  that  this  state  of  society  pre- 
sents peculiar  advantages  and  powerful  inducements  to  the  cultivation 
of  pious  affections.  Tlie  farmer,  after  all  his  industry  and  good  man- 
agement, must  depend  entirely  on  Divine  Providence  for  a  harvest. 
He  must  feel,  every  day  and  every  hour,  that  by  his  own  power  and 
skill,  he  can  no  more  produce  a  blade  of  grass  or  a  single  corn,  than 
he  can  create  a  world  ;  and  this  consciousness  of  his  dependence  on  the 
Supreme  Being,  can  not  fail  to  generate,  in  a  mind  not  absolutely  bru- 
tish, a  spirit  of  humility  and  submission  to  his  Maker — a  spirit  of  un- 
ceasing reverence,  piety,  and  gratitude.  When  the  husbandman  con- 
siders further,  that  his  labors  are  continually  liable  to  be  frustrated  by 
excessive  rains,  floods,  and  drouth  ;  by  untimely  frost,  blasting,  and 
mildew  ;  by  destructive  storms  and  devouring  insects  ;  calamities  which, 
by  no  human  efforts,  can  be  averted  or  controlled  ;  with  what  face  can 
he  deny  the  providence  or  spurn  the  government  of  his  Maker  ?  How 
can  he  fail  lo  acknowledge  his  own  imbecility  and  dependence,  and 
place  all  his  trust  on  that  Being  who  alone  can  crown  his  labors  with 
success  ? 

But  the  ingenuous  mind  is  not  to  be  influenced  solely  by  the  dread  of 
calamities.     It  will  find,  in  the  works  of  nature  and  Providence,  irre- 


ADDRESS   ON   AGEICULTUHE.  257 

sistible  motives  to  admire  the  power,  the  wisdom,  and  the  benevolence 
of  the  Supreme  Being.  Who  can  examine  the  wonderful  laws  of  the 
vegetable  economy,  the  curious  and  infinitely  diversified  structure  of 
plants,  without  being  led  to  "  look  through  nature  up  to  nature's  God," 
and  to  form  exalted  views  of  Divine  power  and  wisdom  ?  Who  can 
cast  his  eyes  on  spacious  fields  robed  with  verdure  and  adorned  with 
flowers — some,  presenting  the  promise  of  a  rich  harvest  of  fruits — 
others,  expanding  their  beauties  to  delight  the  eye  and  regale  the  senses 
of  man,  or  to  supply  insects  with  nectarious  food — and  thousands  of 
others,  which,  from  our  ignorance  of  their  uses,  are  destined  to  "  waste 
their  sweetness  on  the  desert  air" — who  can  view  this  rich  provision 
of  all  that  can  charm  the  eye,  and  delight  the  mind  of  man,  without 
admiring  the  goodness  of  the  benevolent  Author  ?  Hard  and  insensible 
must  be  the  heart  that  is  not  softened  by  gratitude  for  all  the  blessings 
lavished  on  the  human  race,  and  humbled  by  regret  that  man  should 
ever  forget  his  glorious  Benefactor. 

Notwithstanding  agriculture  is  confessedly  the  first  and  most  impor- 
tant occupation  in  society,  it  is  among  the  last  which  have  engaged  the 
attention  of  scientific  men.  Princes  have  been  employed  in  extending 
their  power  and  dominions  ;  nobles  and  men  of  distinction  have  been 
occupied  in  the  pursuit  of  pleasure  or  of  military  skill  and  glory  ;  while 
the  culture  of  the  earth  has  been  left  to  the  care  and  toils  of  the  humble 
peasant,  to  mercenaries  and  slaves.  To  this  neglect  are  chiefly  to  be 
ascribed  the  frequent  famines  which  aflliicted  the  nations  of  Europe 
anterior  to  the  last  century.  But  within  the  last  seventy  or  eighty 
years,  men  of  science  and  property  have  been  engaged  in  agricultural 
improvements,  particularly  in  Great  Britain  ;  and  the  effect  of  their 
exertions  has  been  to  increase  the  value  of  lands,  and  to  furnish  sub- 
sistence and  augmented  wealth  to  a  more  numerous  population. 

In  this  country,  improvements  in  agriculture  are  of  still  later  origin ; 
and  I  well  remember  the  time  when  no  farmer  thought  of  restoring 
fertility  to  an  impoverished  soil  by  the  aid  of  the  grasses.  The  Revo- 
lution first  disengaged  the  minds  of  our  countrymen  from  the  shackles 
of  custom,  and  gave  a  spring  to  industry  and  enterprise.  The  first 
effect  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States,  was  visible  in  the  ex- 
tension of  commerce,  but  it  soon  appeared  in  every  branch  of  indus- 
try. The  removal  of  the  restrictions  of  the  British  laws  of  trade, 
opened  a  wide  field  for  commercial  enterprise,  which,  by  finding  new 
markets  for  the  productions  of  the  earth,  presented  to  the  farmer  new 
inducements  to  supply  the  demand.  The  wars  which  arose  out  of  the 
revolution  in  France,  threw  into  the  power  of  our  merchants  an  uncom- 
monly lucrative  commerce  that  absorbed  a  large  amount  of  capital. 
This  capital  was,  in  a  few  years,  greatly  augmented.  A  large  portion 
of  this  capital,  has,  by  the  event  of  general  peace,  been  liberated  from 
commercial  employment,  and  may  now  be  devoted  to  agriculture  and 
manufactures.  And  fortunately  there  appears  to  be  an  increasing  dis- 
position in  capitalists  to  turn  their  property  into  these  channels.  Of 
this  fact,  the  recent  formation  of  numerous  societies  for  these  objects, 
and  the  attention  of  men  of  wealth  and  distinction  to  agricultural  pur- 
suits, are  honorable  and  cheering  testimonies.  As  the  society  which 
I  have  the  honor  to  address  was  not  the  last  in  its  institution,  it  may  be 

33 


I 


358  ADDRESS    ON    AGRICULTURE. 

presumed  it  will  not  be  the  most  languid  in  the  prosecution  of  its  ob- 
jects. 

The  great  design  of  this  and  of  similar  institutions,  is,  to  ascertain 
the  best  mode  of  tilling  the  earth  ;  that  mode  which  shall  enable  the 
farmer  to  obtain  the  greatest  quantity  of  produce,  upon  a  given  extent 
of  land,  with  the  least  expense  and  labor.  This  end  is  to  be  accom- 
plished partly  by  science,  but  chief!}'-  by  experiments.  A  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  nature  of  soils,  and  the  fitness  of  each  to  produce  a 
particular  species  of  grain,  would  aid  the  scientific  farmer  in  his  prac- 
tice. But  a  chimical  analysis  of  soils  is  beyond  the  reach  of  most  hus- 
bandmen ;  and  if  it  were  not,  the  knowledge  derived  from  it  would  be 
a  less  safe  ground  of  practice  than  experiment ;  as  the  effect  of  soil 
would  be  liable  to  be  varied  by  the  situation  of  the  land,  by  the  seasons, 
and  other  extraneous  causes.  Experience  and  observation  will  furnish 
the  farmer  with  the  facts  most  necessary  to  guide  him  in  his  rural  econ- 
omy. He  will  find  that  wheat,  rye,  and  maiz  or  American  corn,  on 
wet,  cold,  heavy  land,  will  frustrate  his  hopes  ;  that  oats  and  barley 
will  bear  more  moisture  than  the  grains  just  mentioned  ;  but  that  land 
of  this  kind  is  best  fitted  for  mowing  and  grazing.  He  will  also  find 
that  the  warmest  lands  on  plains  and  moderate  elevations,  are  best  fit- 
ted for  tillage,  and  the  colder  lands  on  mountains,  are  most  properly 
appropriated  to  the  feeding  of  cattle.  He  will  find  that  although  water 
is  essential  to  the  growth  of  plants,  being  the  principal  instrument  of 
conveying  to  them  nutrition,  yet  that  a  superabundance  of  that  fluid, 
no  less  than  a  deficiency,  is  injurious.  He  will  observe  that  soils  possess 
different  capacities  for  retaining  water — that  sand  and  silicious  soils  are 
too  loose — and  that  clay  is  too  compact  when  dry,  and  too  adhesive 
when  wet ;  and  he  will  adapt  his  mode  of  tillage  to  the  modification  of 
these  qualities.  Experience  will  teach  him  that  a  soil  of  loose  texture 
should  be  laid  as  smooth  as  possible,  by  harrowing  and  rolling,  as  a 
smooth,  compact  surface  retards  evaporation — that,  on  the  contrary,  a 
moist,  heavy  soil  should  be  thrown  into  narrow  lands  or  ridges,  for  the 
purpose  of  casting  off  the  water,  and  exposing,  to  the  rays  of  the  sun, 
a  greater  extent  of  surface.  Nothing  can  be  more  injudicious  than  to 
drag  down  to  a  smooth  surface  a  wet,  cold,  argillaceous  soil,  especially 
for  a  crop  of  American  corn  or  potatoes.  For  these  crops,  the  land 
should  be  left  in  the  furrow  as  loose  and  uneven  as  possible.  The 
more  smooth  the  surface,  the  longer  the  land  retains  water,  the  less 
pervious  is  it  to  the  heat  of  the  sun,  and  the  more  compact  does  it  be- 
come by  the  weight  of  falling  rains.  In  our  climate,  land  in  the  spring 
is  usually  too  wet  and  cold  for  the  rapid  growth  of  corn  ;  and  as  a  gen- 
eral fact,  our  crops  suffer  more  from  an  excess  than  from  a  deficiency 
of  water.  In  preparing  land  for  maiz,  therefore,  the  judicious  farmer 
will  leave  his  land  in  furrow,  or  in  ridges ;  as  in  this  form  it  warms 
sooner,  is  more  easily  tilled,  and  the  harrow,  at  hoeing,  will  perform 
double  the  work  in  pulverizing  the  earth  and  covering  weeds.  Even 
sward  land,  according  to  my  own  experience,  should  be  managed  in  the 
same  manner.  The  sod,  well  turned  over  by  the  plow,  should  not  be 
broken  or  disturbed,  till  the  first,  and  generally  not  till  the  second  hoe- 
ing. The  decomposition  of  the  vegetable  matter  will  keep  the  land 
sufficiently  light  and  mellow,  and  the  process  of  decomposition  is  rather 


ADDRESS    ON    AGRICULTITRE.  259 

retarded  than  accelerated,  by  an  earlier  use  of  the  harrow  or  plow. 
Indeed  dragging  or  cross  plowing  too  early,  turns  back  a  part  of  the 
sod,  rendering  the  land  more  grassy  and  difficult  to  till  ;  and  often  it 
disturbs  the  worms  which  lie  harmless,  feeding  on  the  grass  beneath, 
and  compels  them  to  seek  the  tender  corn  for  food.  I  have  known  sev- 
eral fields  of  corn  nearly  ruined  by  breaking  the  turf  and  disturbing 
the  worms  at  the  first  hoeing. 

A  primary  object  in  rural  economy,  and  one  to  which  every  farmer 
must  direct  particular  attention,  is  to  replenish  the  earth  with  the  proper 
nutriment  of  plants.  Our  ancestors  found  the  earth  covered  with  a  rich 
vegetable  mold,  the  remains  of  decomposed  leaves  and  plants,  which, 
for  a  series  of  years,  produced  abundant  crops,  and  precluded  the  ne- 
cessity of  making  or  preserving  manures.  This  circumstance  gene- 
rated a  habit  of  negligence,  in  providing  manure,  the  effects  of  which 
are  still  visible,  in  every  part  of  the  country.  If  we  were  to  inquire, 
who,  in  this  respect,  is  without  fault,  it  might  be  difficult  to  find  the 
man  who  would  venture  to  throw  the  first  stone.  About  our  houses 
and  barns,  in  the  highways  and  in  the  fields,  we  every  where  see  proofs 
of  this  negligence.  But  nothing  is  more  certain,  than  that  land  will  be 
exhausted,  and  agriculture  decline,  unless  the  soil  is  regularly  supplied 
with  as  much  nutrition  as  the  crops  draw  from  it.  To  devise  the  means 
of  furnishing  adequate  supplies  of  manure,  is  a  most  important  object, 
and  calls  for  a  contribution  of  all  the  knowledge  and  experience  of  the 
members  of  this  society,  and  for  all  the  information  derivable  from 
other  sources. 

In  general,  it  may  be  observed  that  almost  every  animal  and  vegeta- 
ble substance  furnishes  a  portion  of  the  food  of  plants  ;  and  every  such 
substance,  not  more  valuable  for  some  other  purpose,  should  be  con- 
verted to  this  use.  Great  improvements  may  be  made,  in  making  and 
collecting  manure,  by  so  constructing  stables,  sties  and  barn-yards,  as 
to  save  the  excretions  of  domestic  animals,  and  by  mixing  them  whh 
other  manuring  substances. 

Ashes,  leached  and  unleached,  are  well  known  to  be  a  valuable  ma- 
nure— and  their  effect  is  particularly  remarkable  in  producing  clover 
on  dry  land. 

Lime  or  calcarious  earth,  is  considered  as  a  manure  of  value  upon 
some  kinds  of  soil ;  but  probably  it  has  been  little  used  within  the  limits 
of  this  society.  It  must  remain  for  future  experience  to  determine  its 
efficacy,  and  the  kind  of  soil  to  which  it  may  be  usefully  applied. 

Marine  shells,  beds  of  which  give  inexhaustible  fertility  to  certain 
tracts  of  land  on  the  sea-shore,  are  not  within  our  reach — and  the  like 
remark  is  applicable  to  fish,  muscles,  and  sea-weed. 

Marl  is  a  manure  of  great  value ;  but  I  am  not  informed  whether 
any  considerable  beds  of  it  have  been  found  in  this  region.  The  dis- 
covery of  such  beds  is  however  an  object  too  interesting  to  escape  the 
attention  of  this  society. 

Gypsum  is  a  very  efficacious  manure,  on  some  kinds  of  soil,  and  for 
some  species  of  plants.  Its  real  value  however  has  not  been  ascer- 
tained in  all  cases,  by  accurate  experiments;  and  on  some  crops  its 
value  is  probably  overrated.  A  series  of  experiments  on  different  soils, 
conducted  with  skill  and  care,  and  the  results  ascertained  by  weight 


260  ADDRESS    ON    AGRICULTURE. 

and  measure,  would  throw  important  light  on  this  subject,  and  direct 
the  husbandman  to  a  more  successful  application  of  this  manure. 

There  is  one  resource  for  restoring  fertility  to  an  impoverished  soil, 
which  is  within  every  farmer's  power — this  is  the  seeding  of  land  with 
some  kind  of  grass.  It  is  a  striking  evidence  of  the  wisdom  and  good- 
ness of  the  Creator,  that  those  species  of  plants  which  either  grow 
spontaneously  in  the  greatest  abundance,  or  are  produced  with  the  most 
ease  by  cultivation,  as  herbage  for  cattle,  should  also  be  well  adapted 
to  fertilize  the  earth,  and  prepare  it  for  producing  grain,  the  food  of 
man.  The  sowing  of  grass-seed  and  a  rotation  of  ci'ops,  are  among 
the  most  important  improvements  in  agriculture,  introduced  during  the 
last  century.  The  beneficial  effects  of  this  practice  are  now  so  well 
understood,  that  the  man  who  suffers  his  land  to  rest  unseeded,  after  a 
crop,  for  the  purpose  of  recruiting  its  strength  by  a  spontaneous  growth 
of  weeds  and  grass,  may  be  considered  £is  neglecting  one  of  the  most 
obvious  advantages  which  Providence  has  offered  to  his  industry. 

In  the  preparation  and  management  of  the  manure  of  barn-yards, 
and  of  compost,  it  is  important  to  provide  shelter  to  secure  them  from 
waste.  In  the  common  practice  of  suffering  the  substances  to  lie 
spread,  and  exposed  to  a  burning  sun  and  to  washing  rains  during  the 
summer,  it  is  probable  that  one  half  of  the  nutritious  matter  is  lost. 
The  substances,  in  a  state  of  decomposition,  should  be  sheltered  from 
rains  and  the  direct  action  of  the  sun,  or,  if  this  can  not  be  done,  they 
should  be  collected  into  large  piles,  and  covered  with  earth,  weeds  or 
straw. 

In  rural  economy,  it  is  of  no  small  moment  to  attend  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  weeds.  The  more  perfectly  free  from  weeds  land  can  be  kept, 
the  larger  and  better  will  be  the  crops ;  as  weeds  deprive  grain  of  a 
part  of  the  nutrition  of  the  soil,  and  prevent  the  action  of  the  sun, 
which  is  necessary  to  elaborate  the  juices,  separate  the  water  from  the 
nutritious  matter,  and  bring  the  fruit  to  perfection.  Noxious  plants 
therefore  should  be  effectually  subdued  ;  and  such  as  spring  up  among 
corn  and  potatoes,  after  the  plow  and  hoe  can  be  used  with  safety, 
should  be  extirpated  by  the  hand,  before  their  seeds  are  ripened.  And 
what  shall  we  say  of  the  farmer  who  suffers  a  rank,  luxuriant  growth 
of  briers  and  weeds  to  stand  unmolested  about  his  house  and  barn,  and 
on  the  borders  of  his  garden  and  fields .''  The  best  mode  of  subduing 
and  extirpating  weeds,  is  a  subject  that  demands  particular  attention — 
nor  is  it  less  important  to  check  the  introduction  and  spread  of  any  new 
plant  that  is  noxious  to  the  growth  of  grass  and  grain.  The  Canada 
thistle,  one  of  the  most  pernicious  and  troublesome  weeds,  and  of  very 
difficult  extirpation,  has  spread  over  the  northern  parts  of  New  England, 
and  is  extending  itself  into  the  southern.  It  is  now  seen  in  the  counties 
of  Franklin  and  Hampshire,  and  in  the  town  of  Windsor  in  Connecti- 
cut ;  the  seeds  being  conveyed  from  the  north  in  grass-seed  and  in  oats 
or  other  fodder  for  horses.  Its  seeds  are  feathered,  and  wafted  to  a 
distance  by  the  wind  ;  and  it  propagates  itself  by  lateral  or  horizontal 
roots.  My  own  experience  teaches  that  it  is  barely  possible  to  eradicate 
this  plant,  and  if  the  farmers  have  a  just  sense  of  their  true  interest, 
they  will  attack  it  on  its  first  appearance,  and  check  its  propagation. 


ADDRESS    ON    AGRICULTURE.  2Qi 

The  variety  of  the  species  of  grass  and  roots  which  grow  well  in 
this  climate,  precludes  the  probability  of  a  general  failure  of  provisions 
and  fodder ;  and  the  experience  of  nearly  two  centuries  authorizes  the 
belief  that  the  inhabitants  of  New  England  are  little  exposed  to  famine. 
But  let  it  be  considered  that  our  seasons  are  extremely  variable,  and 
that  the  revolution  of  a  few  years  exhibits  all  the  varieties  of  wet  and 
dry,  warm,  cool,  and  temperate  summers.  Our  crops  are  also  exposed 
to  destruction  from  winter-killing,  insects  and  unseasonable  frost.  We 
know  by  observation  that  some  species  of  grain  thrive  best  in  one  kind 
of  season ;  others,  in  another ;  cool,  temperate  and  moderately  dry 
weather  is  far  most  favorable  to  wheat,  rye,  oats  and  barley  ;  but  warm 
summers  are  necessary  to  ripen  maiz  or  American  corn.  As  we  are 
unable,  when  we  sow  and  plant,  to  foresee  what  the  general  character 
of  the  summer  is  to  be,  prudence  dictates  that  we  should  commit  to  the 
earth  every  year  a  due  proportion  of  the  seed  of  every  species  of  grain 
and  roots,  on  which  we  depend  for  the  subsistence  of  men  and  cattle. 
By  this  practice  we  multiply  the  chances  of  securing  a  good  crop  from 
one  or  more  of  the  kinds.  The  failure  of  one  species  of  grain,  in  a  partic- 
ular season,  is  no  good  reason  for  neglecting  to  attempt  to  raise  it  the  next 
year.  Indeed,  in  such  a  variable  climate,  such  failure  rather  increases 
the  probability  of  a  good  crop  the  succeeding  year.  After  the  loss  of 
American  corn  by  frost  in  1816,  a  great  cry  was  raised  against  the  cul- 
tivation of  that  species  of  grain  in  New  England,  and  with  no  incon- 
siderable effect ;  for  a  less  quantity  of  it  has  been  planted  the  last  two 
years,  and  more  land  has  been  appropriated  to  the  raising  of  other  spe- 
cies of  grain,  and  of  potatoes.  The  present  year  has  shown  the  im- 
propriety of  this  change  of  practice ;  for  potatoes  and  several  kinds  of 
grain  have  produced  a  light  crop,  and  the  season  has  been  favorable  to 
maiz.  The  inference  from  these  facts  is  that  we  should  not  suffer  a 
particular  instance  of  ill  success,  to  influence  our  general  course  of 
husbandry. 

In  the  course  of  agricultural  improvement,  the  art  of  draining  wet 
lands,  which  is  now  in  its  infancy  in  this  country,  will  demand  the  at- 
tention of  farmers.  Land  abounding  with  springs  may  often  be  much 
improved  by  draining.  Valleys  or  depressions  of  land  between  hills, 
often  contain  a  body  of  alluvial  soil,  swept  by  rains  from  the  adjacent 
declivities,  enriched  by  deposits  of  vegetable  mold,  which  have  been 
accumulating  for  ages.  These  when  freed  from  a  superabundance  of 
water,  and  exposed  to  the  influence  of  the  sun,  will  often  be  found  most 
excellent  land  for  grazing  or  tillage. 

For  the  security  of  crops,  good  fences  are  indispensable  ;  and  most 
of  the  towns  within  this  district  abound  with  materials  for  this  purpose. 
The  hilly  country  is  generally  furnished  with  stone ;  and  many  towns 
have  a  supply  of  chestnut,  an  invaluable  timber  for  fencing.  The 
towns  adjacent  to  the  river,  when  other  materials  fail  or  become  too 
expensive,  will  find  a  resource  in  the  cultivation  of  the  thorn. 

This  subject  naturally  suggests  the  importance  of  attending  to  the 
preservation  and  increase  of  wood  and  timber.  Perhaps  in  no  particu- 
lar are  the  people  of  this  country  less  provident  than  in  the  continual 
destruction  of  these  articles,  without  attempting  to  supply  the  waste. 
They  seem  not  to  consider  that  the  labor  of  a  few  weeks  only  is  suffi- 


262  ADDRESS    ON    AGRICULTTTKE, 

cient  to  prostrate  a  forest ;  but  that  the  growth  of  an  age  is  necessary 
to  replace  it.  In  a  large  part  of  New  England,  good  timber  and  wood 
for  fuel  are  already  scarce  ;  and  with  an  increasing  population,  and 
growing  nianufactures,  in  a  cold  climate,  what  is  to  be  the  situation  of 
the  inhabitants,  a  century  hence  without  more  care  and  economy  !  Let 
every  owner  of  land  consider  that  even  now  a  forest  of  pine,  oak, 
chestnut,  ash  and  maple,  adds  a  great  value  to  his  farm  ;  and  that  this 
value  will  increase  or  diminish,  according  to  his  care  in  the  manage- 
ment of  his  wood-land. 

In  the  cultivation  of  fruit  trees,  there  is  in  this  region  of  country, 
great  room  for  improvement ;  both  in  the  pruning  and  cultivation  of 
such  trees  as  we  have,  and  in  supplying  better  species  of  fruit.  It  is 
painful  to  see  valuable  orchards  in  a  state  of  decay,  merely  for  want  of 
culture ;  and  equally  to  be  regretted  that  so  little  attention  is  paid  to 
the  selection  of  good  fruit,  especially  durable  and  pleasant  fruit  for  win- 
ter's use.  The  trouble  and  expense  of  procuring  the  best  species,  are 
very  inconsiderable,  and  furnish  no  just  apology  for  the  neglect.  Ap- 
ples and  pears  are  cultivated  in  all  parts  of  New  England,  and  the  trees 
are  durable.  Peaches  thi'ive  well,  in  this  neighborhood,  but  the  pro- 
duce is  precarious,  and  the  tree  short-lived ;  yet  it  is  easily  replaced, 
as  it  bears  fruit  the  fourth  or  fifth  year  from  the  seed.  The  quince 
thrives  well,  and  seldom  fails  to  yield  fruit.  The  plum-tree  grows  well, 
but  is  subject  to  premature  decay  from  the  bursting  of  the  bark,  and  a 
consequent  excrescence.  This  has  been  ascribed  to  the  puncture  of  an 
insect,  and  the  excrescence  often  contains  a  small  worm.  But  this  is 
not  always  the  fact ;  and  it  may  justly  be  questioned,  whether  the  punc- 
ture of  any  insect  would  produce  such  an  effect.  It  is  most  probably  a 
disease,  for  which  no  effectual  remedy  has  yet  been  discovered.  But 
the  most  favorable  position  for  this  tree,  according  to  my  observation, 
is  in  a  moist,  strong  soil,  and  in  the  coldest  situation  that  can  be  found, 
as  on  the  north  side  of  a  building  or  hedge.  Cherries  of  all  kinds  may 
be  cultivated  to  advantage. 

To  the  cultivation  of  the  more  rare  and  delicious  fruits,  there  is  an 
objection,  arising  out  of  the  moral  state  of  society,  which  ought  not  to 
pass  unnoticed.  Many  persons  neglect  to  plant  some  of  the  best  kinds 
of  fruit-trees,  and,  in  some  instances,  such  trees  have  been  hewn  down, 
because  the  fruit  is  subject  to  be  stolen.  The  fact  can  not  be  denied  ; 
and  it  is  evidence  of  a  defect  of  morals  reproachful  to  the  character  of 
the  country.  Apples  are  in  such  abundance,  that  the  taking  of  a  few, 
from  a  neighbor's  orchard,  without  his  knowledge  or  consent,  has  not 
been  treated  as  theft.  This  indulgence  has  perhaps  contributed  to  in- 
duce the  practice  of  plundering  gardens  and  orchards  of  more  rare,  and 
on  account  of  their  scarcity,  more  valued  fruits.  But  surely  men,  in  a 
Christian  country,  must  know,  and  are  able  to  make  their  children  and 
apprentices  understand,  that  in  the  eye  of  reason  and  of  law,  and  in  the 
view  of  Heaven,  it  is  as  really  the  crime  of  theft,  to  take  fruit  from  an- 
other's inclosure,  without  his  consent,  as  to  take  money  from  his  chest. 
If  the  youth  of  this  country  do  not  thus  understand  the  fact,  it  is  impor- 
tant that  the  instructions  of  the  desk,  the  discipline  of  parents  and  guar- 
dians, and  the  penalties  of  law,  should  be  combined,  to  impress  upon 
their  minds,  this  salutary  lesson  of  morality. 


ADDRESS    ON    AGRICULTUEE.  283 

Another  object,  interesting  to  the  community,  and  especially  to  the 
agriculturist,  is  the  improvement  of  domestic  animals.  This  is  to  be 
effected,  not  so  much,  I  apprehend,  by  importing  and  raising  varieties 
of  a  larger  size,  as  by  selecting  for  propagation  those  of  the  best  shape 
and  qualities,  from  the  species  we  now  possess,  and  by  giving  them  all 
the  perfection  of  which  they  are  susceptible.  Among  individuals  of  the 
same  species,  there  is  a  great  difference  in  the  form  and  qualities  which 
render  them  profitable  to  the  owner ;  both  in  the  males  for  labor,  in  the 
females  for  dairy,  and  in  both  for  slaughter.  The  improvement  of  do- 
mestic animals  of  all  kinds  must  depend  chiefly  on  selecting  the  best  of 
the  species  for  propagation,  and  in  supplying  them  with  a  sufficiency 
of  good  fodder,  and  suitable  sheher  from  inclemencies  of  the  weather. 
And  it  deserves  to  be  well  considered,  whether  it  is  not  ill-timed  econ- 
omy to  turn  off  young  cattle  with  cold  lodgings  in  winter,  and  a  scanty 
supply  of  coarse  fodder.  When  young  animals  have  been  stinted  in 
their  food  for  two  or  three  years,  and  their  growth  checked,  when  it 
should  be  most  rapid  and  vigorous,  is  it  rational  to  suppose  that  better 
feeding  will  afterward  give  to  them  their  full  expansion  of  body  and 
strength  of  limbs  }  If  the  expense  of  good  feeding  is  somewhat  greater, 
will  not  the  owner  be  amply  repaid  in  the  increased  value  of  the  ani- 
mals }  And  what  is  the  difference  in  the  taxes  paid  on  cattle  of  a  poor 
quality,  and  on  those  of  more  value,  and  of  a  higher  price  in  the 
market } 

The  horses  generally  used  in  this  part  of  New  England  are  of  an 
inferior  breed,  and  of  low  price  ;  but  probably  for  use  on  farms,  they 
are  preferable  to  those  of  a  larger  size  and  more  beauty,  which  can 
hardly  be  supposed  to  perform  services  equal  to  the  additional  price  of 
purchase,  and  expense  of  keeping.  But  it  deserves  to  be  considered, 
whether  for  the  saddle,  for  the  carriage  and  for  market,  it  would  not  be 
eligible  to  introduce  and  encourage  the  propagation  of  a  handsomer 
breed. 

Of  sheep  and  swine  we  probably  possess  the  best  sp>€cies  ;  but  doubt- 
less improvements  may  be  made  in  the  mode  of  feeding  and  fattening 
them  with  the  least  expense. 

In  regard  to  the  importance  of  manufactures,  the  encouragement  of 
which  is  one  object  of  this  association,  there  can  be  only  one  opinion. 
Every  country  should,  as  far  as  possible,  not  only  produce  the  materi- 
als of  the  clolhing,  utensils  and  furniture  consumed  by  its  inhabitants, 
but  should  work  those  materials  into  the  form  required  for  use.  No 
nation  should  depend  on  foreign  countries  for  essential  articles ;  as 
supplies  of  such  articles  are  liable  to  be  interrupted  in  time  of  war  ;  and 
as  they  draw  from  the  country,  the  profits  of  its  agriculture.  The 
moi'e  completely  a  country  is  supplied  with  every  article  of  consump- 
tion, by  the  labor  of  its  own  citizens,  the  more  independent  it  must  be, 
and  the  more  sources  of  wealth  does  it  retain  in  its  own  power.  In 
many  respects,  the  present  state  of  our  manufactures  is  highly  gratify- 
ing ;  and  in  particular  with  respect  to  the  articles  of  prime  use  and  ne- 
cessity made  in  families.  In  New  England,  nK)st  of  the  clothes  of 
coarse  fabric  are  manufactured  in  families,  and  chiefly  by  the  industry 
of  females,  the  value  of  whose  labor,  in  this  respect,  is  not  easily  esti- 
mated.    To  such  an  extent  are  these  domestic  manufactures  carried. 


264  ADDRESS    ON   AGRICULTURE. 

that  in  some  towns,  and  probably  in  many,  not  a  piece  of  coarse  foreign 
cloth  is  consumed  by  the  inhabitants.  Nor  are  these  domestic  labors 
limited  to  the  manufacture  of  cloths  for  wearing  apparel ;  they  extend 
to  many  other  articles. 

In  the  manufacture  of  the  finer  cloths,  our  country  is  making  rapid 
advances  ;  and  already  such  cloths,  enter  advantageously  into  competi- 
tion with  superfine  imported  cloths.  The  manufacture  of  cotton,  which, 
at  the  close  of  the  late  war,  suffered  extreme  depression,  is  again  revi- 
ving, but  under  many  disadvantages.  Many  of  the  most  necessary 
utensils  and  articles  of  clothing  and  furniture,  are  made,  in  New  Eng- 
land, not  only  for  home  consumption,  but  for  exportation  ;  such  as  hats, 
shoes,  saddlery  and  cabinet-work.  We  are  supplied  also  from  our  own 
manufactories  with  axes,  hoes,  sythes  and  various  castings  ;  and  it  may 
be  well  to  consider,  whether  the  manufacture  of  saws,  screws,  cutlery 
and  some  other  utensils  of  iron,  might  not  be  introduced  or  extended 
by  due  encouragement.  On  this  subject,  a  detail  of  particulars  can  not 
be  expected  in  this  address ;  but  I  will  take  the  liberty  to  offer  a  few 
remarks  on  the  obstacles  that  impede  the  progress  of  manufactures  in 
the  United  States. 

It  may  be  admitted,  without  an  improper  indulgence  of  national  van- 
ity, that  our  citizens  are  not  deficient  in  ingenuity  or  dexterity ;  and  skill, 
in  any  kind  of  work,  they  may  and  will  acquire,  whenever  suitable  en- 
couragement is  offered  to  call  their  ingenuity  into  exercise.  Most  of 
the  raw  materials,  which  enter  into  the  manufacture  of  essential  arti- 
cles, are  produced  or  found  in  our  own  country,  and  others  are  within 
our  reach.  Under  these  advantages,  however,  our  manufacturing  es- 
tablishments have  to  contend  with  a  serious  obstacle  in  the  high  price  of 
labor,  more  especially  in  the  making  of  articles  of  fine  texture.  The 
use  of  machinery,  and  the  employment  of  females  and  children,  supply, 
in  part,  a  remedy  for  this  evil ;  and  government  lends  its  aid  by  protect- 
ing duties.  Still,  it  must  be  difficult  for  a  country,  in  which  a  dollar  will 
purchase  only  one  or  two  days'  labor,  to  sustain  a  competition  in  manu- 
factures, with  a  country  in  which  a  dollar  will  purchase  four,  five,  or 
six  days'  labor.  The  great  obstacle,  then,  to  the  success  of  manufac- 
tures in  the  United  States,  is  the  depreciated  value  of  money — an  evil 
which  also  materially  affects  our  commerce. 

Since  the  American  revolution  money  has  lost  nearly  half  its  former 
value.  In  the  ordinary  intercourse  of  our  citizens  with  each  other,  this 
evil  is  less  sensibly  felt ;  for  the  prices  of  provision  and  labor  have 
advanced  nearly  in  the  same  proportion.  When  the  farmer  gives  to 
the  laborer  a  bushel  of  rye  for  a  day's  work,  it  makes  no  difference  to 
the  parties  whether  the  nominal  value  of  the  rye  and  the  labor  is  fifty 
cents  or  a  dollar — the  real  value  is  the  same  in  both  cases.  The  ad- 
vance of  price  is  no  evidence  of  an  advance  in  value ;  and  if  rye  were 
to  rise  to  ten  dollars  a  bushel,  and  labor  to  ten  dollars  a  day,  the  rela- 
tive condition  of  the  farmer  and  the  laborer  would  be  the  same — nei- 
ther party  would  gain  or  loose  by  the  advance.  But  the  case  is  different 
with  the  exporting  merchant  and  manufacturer,  who  send  their  produce 
or  wares  to  countries  in  which  silver  and  gold  have  not  suffered  a  de- 
preciation. The  merchant  gives  more  than  he  formerly  did  for  the 
produce  of  this  country,  but  he  obtains  no  higher  prices  for  it  abroad. 


ADDRESS    ON   AGRICULTURE.  265 

The  manufacturer  pays  a  higher  price  for  labor  and  provisions  at  home, 
but  his  wares  bring  no  higher  prices  in  foreign  markets.  In  this  case, 
the  depreciation  of  money  in  our  country  is  a  clear  deduction  from  the 
profits  of  our  commerce.  So  in  regard  to  articles  manufactured  for 
hotne  consumption,  the  manufacturer  can  make  no  profit,  unless  he  can 
aflbrd  his  wares  at  as  low  prices  as  those  of  imported  wares  of  a  like 
kind — and  this  can  not  always  be  done,  on  account  of  the  high  prices 
of  labor  and  provisions  in  this  country. 

The  principal  source  of  this  evil  is  to  be  sought  in  the  number  of  our 
banking  institutions,  and  the  amount  of  notes  which  they  issue.  In  the 
history  of  commerce,  perhaps  no  parallel  instance  can  be  found,  of  such 
unceasing  demands  for  the  privilege  of  banking,  and  of  such  improvi- 
dent compliances  with  these  demands,  without  any  regard  to  the  perni- 
cious effects  of  an  undue  augmentation  of  the  circulating  medium,  as 
have  been  witnessed  in  the  United  States.  Upon  an  application  for  a 
new  banking  corporation,  the  only  question  with  legislatures  seems  to 
be,  whether  it  will  accommodate  the  petitioners.  The  far  more  impor- 
tant questions,  whether  the  money  in  circulation  is  not  sufficient  for 
the  purposes  of  trade,  and  whether  an  augmentation  will  not  depreciate 
its  value,  and  thus  affect  existing  contracts,  as  well  as  the  trade  and 
manufactures  of  the  country,  appear  not  to  occupy  a  moment's  atten- 
tion. The  injuries  resulting  from  this  inattention  to  political  economy, 
are  far  more  extensive  than  a  superficial  view  of  the  subject  would  lead 
men  to  suppose.  A  salary  settled  on  a  clergyman  thirty  or  forty  years 
ago,  and  then  probably  no  more  than  sufficient  to  maintain  his  family, 
will  now  purchase  little  more  than  half  of  the  commodities,  and  espe- 
cially of  our  home  productions,  which  it  would  at  the  time  of  the  con- 
tract. The  property  of  a  widow  or  an  orphan,  vested  in  stock  thirty 
years  ago,  has  already  lost  nearly  one  half  its  value.  Innumerable 
losses  of  this  and  of  similar  kinds,  always  result  from  a  depreciation 
of  the  current  money  of  a  country.  Men  are  apt  to  suppose  that  an 
increase  of  nominal  value  is  an  increase  of  wealth,  which  is  often  a 
great  mistake.  The  value  of  money  or  of  estate  is  determined  only 
by  what  it  will  purchase.  If  five  thousand  dollars  forty  years  ago 
would  purchase  as  much  labor,  and  as  many  of  the  necessary  goods 
and  provisions  of  life,  as  ten  thousand  dollars  will  now,  then  the  farm 
which  was  estimated  at  five  thousand  dollars  forty  years  ago,  was  worth 
as  much  as  the  farm  now  estimated  at  ten  thousand.  The  owner  of  the 
former  was  as  rich  as  the  owner  of  the  latter.  The  increased  price  of 
lands  within  the  period  mentioned,  is  owing  to  two  causes  ;  real  im- 
provements in  agriculture,  and  a  depreciation  of  money.  That  part  of 
the  value  which  proceeds  from  improvements,  is  an  increase  of  real 
wealth — that  which  proceeds  from  depreciation  of  money,  is  merely 
nominal. 

The  present  depreciated  state  of  our  currency,  is  one  of  the  greatest 
political  evils  now  experienced  in  the  United  States ;  an  evil  which  can 
be  corrected  only  by  more  just  and  enlarged  views  of  the  operations  of 
money  than  the  councils  of  the  several  states  appear  at  present  to  pos- 
sess. But  without  entering  into  discussions  which  pertain  to  legisla- 
tion, let  individuals  and  associations  of  men  employ  their  time  and  fac- 
ulties, in  devising  and  executing  plans  of  improvement,  iit  directing 

34  * 


.•.^■•' 


266  ADDRESS   ON   AGRICULTURE. 

and  invigorating  industry,  and  augmenting  the  wealth  and  resources  of 
the  country.  In  almost  every  branch  of  business  there  is  ample  room 
for  improvement,  and  those  are  the  real  benefactors  of  the  community, 
who  direct  their  time  and  means  to  multiply  the  sources  of  public  pros- 
perity. 

But  let  it  not  be  imagined  that  valuable  improvements  can  be  effect- 
ed in  a  moment,  or  without  encountering  serious  obstacles.  Those  who 
know  the  immense  power  of  habit  in  governing  the  conduct  of  the 
great  mass  of  mankind,  will  prepare  themselves  to  contend  with  nu- 
merous discouragements.  Men  are  not  easily  convinced  of  the  errors 
of  their  practice  ;  and  when  convinced,  they  will  not  always  surrender 
their  wills  to  their  conviction.  Add  to  this  that  sloth,  negligence,  and 
inattention,  often  render  the  progress  of  improvement  extremely  slow. 
The  potatoe,  a  native  of  America,  was  first  cultivated  in  Europe. 
Nearly  a  century  and  a  half  had  elapsed,  after  its  discovery,  before  it 
was  introduced  into  New  England,  and  probably  men  are  still  living 
who  never  saw  it  in  their  youth.  The  late  Count  Rumford  was  the 
first  to  introduce  it  into  Bavaria,  and  to  this  day  it  is  not  universally 
cultivated  in  Europe.  Yet  beyond  a  question,  this  esculent  root  is  one 
of  the  most  profitable  and  useful  articles  which  the  farmer  can  raise ; 
particularly  necessary  to  the  peasantry  of  Europe  ;  and  one  of  the  best 
temporal  blessings  which  man  heis  received  from  his  Maker. 

This  is  a  single  instance,  selected  from  a  multitude  which  might  be 
mentioned,  of  the  disposition  of  men  to  rest  satisfied  with  their  present 
practice  and  attainments,  and  of  the  reluctance  with  which  they  meet 
every  attempt  to  introduce  a  change,  even  for  the  better.  Nor  is  this 
disposition  confined  to  unlettered  people  ;  it  is  often  found  in  men  of 
erudition  and  science,  and  serves  to  continue,  from  age  to  age,  the  most 
palpable  errors  in  opinions  and  practice. 

But  the  slow  progress  of  improvement,  and  the  difficulties  that  at- 
tend it,  are  no  good  reason  why  it  should  not  be  attempted.  The  ra- 
tional powers  of  men  are  talents  entrusted  to  them  by  their  Creator  for 
the  purpose  of  use  and  improvement — and  we  are  not  authorized  to 
keep  them  in  a  napkin.  In  regard  to  improvements  in  agriculture  and 
the  arts,  we  are  to  consider  that  private  interest  will  operate  as  a  stimu- 
lus to  efforts,  and  that  well  directed  and  persevering  efforts  will  ulti- 
mately be  crowned  with  success. 

In  reviewing  the  history  of  the  human  race,  it  is  melancholy  to  ob- 
serve how  large  a  portion  of  men  have  devoted  their  talents  and  their 
property  to  illegitimate  purposes.  My  friends,  what  have  been  the 
principal  objects  of  pursuit  among  men  of  wealth  and  distinction,  in 
every  nation  and  in  every  period  of  the  world  ?  In  the  rude  ages  of 
society,  tribes  of  men  have  almost  always  been  making  war  upon  each 
other  for  dominion  and  plunder.  Disdaining  the  cultivation  of  the 
earth,  as  an  employment  fit  only  for  women  and  slaves,  they  have  con- 
sidered that  glory  was  to  be  acquired  only  in  the  field  of  battle,  and 
property  to  be  sought  in  depredations  on  their  neighbors.  And  what- 
ever modifications  may  have  been  introduced  into  the  modes  of  war- 
fare, by  refinement  and  the  union  of  men  in  kingdoms  and  empires, 
war  still  wears  its  savage  character.  It  almost  always  springs  from 
savage  principles — the  love  of  power  or  glory,  and  the  love  of  plun- 


ADDRESS    ON    AGRICULTURE.  267 

der.  And  what  a  large  proportion  of  the  population  of  every  kingdom 
and  state  is  constantly  employed  in  manufacturing  and  using  instru- 
ments of  destruction  !  What  an  enormous  amount  of  money  is  annu- 
ally appropriated  to  purchase  arms  and  provision,  and  to  hire  men  to 
destroy  lives  and  property — to  slaughter,  impoverish,  subdue  or  enslave 
those  who  are  brethren  of  the  same  family  !  Yes,  men,  rational  be- 
ings, the  offspring  of  a  common  father,  possessed  of  the  same  powers 
and  rights,  entitled  to  the  same  privileges  and  blessings,  capable  of  the 
same  enjoyments,  and  destined  to  the  same  end,  are  often  exerting 
their  utmost  powers,  and  wasting  their  substance,  to  inflict  misery  on 
their  own  species  !  Is  this  the  business  assigned  to  man  by  his  Creator  ? 
And  what  is  the  state  of  civil  society  in  peace,  and  among  men  not 
personally  engaged  in  the  work  of  havoc  and  desolation  ?  Is  not  the 
pursuit  of  pleasure,  power,  and  distinction,  the  principal  employment  ? 
And  when  men  have  acquired  riches,  wrung  perhaps  from  the  toils  and 
oppression  of  their  fellow  men,  and  are  able  to  riot  in  luxury,  and 

"Roll  the  thundering  chariot  o'er  the  ground," 

to  what  purposes  has  their  wealth  been  applied  ?  How  large  a  portion 
of  it  has  been  squandered  on  the  most  contemptible  sports  and  the  most 
degrading  vices !  See  a  prince,  a  nobleman,  a  gentleman — for  none 
but  gentlemen  are  entitled  to  the  privilege — see  him  mounted  on  his 
steed,  with  a  pack  of  hounds,  leaping  ditches,  and  hedges,  and  five- 
barred  gates,  in  pursuit  of  a  stag  or  a  hare  !  Yes,  a  man,  a  rational 
being,  and  a  company  of  dogs,  chasing  a  little  timorous,  helpless  ani- 
mal !  The  hungry  savage  must  seek  his  food  among  the  wild  beasts  ; 
but  what  sort  of  sport  is  this  for  a  civilized  man  ? 

Go  to  the  cock-pit,  and  see  gentlemen  of  education  and  property, 
spending  their  time  and  money  in  the  very  rational  entertainment  of 
seeing  one  fowl  spur  and  tear  to  pieces  another.  Is  this  the  business 
of  man  ? 

Go  to  the  race-ground,  and  behold  whole  counties  collected  to  see 
which  of  two  horses  can  run  a  few  feet  or  a  few  inches  further  than  the 
other  in  a  given  time,  and  note  the  sums  of  money  laid  upon  the  issue 
of  the  mighty  contest !  Is  this  the  business  of  man,  and  the  proper  use 
of  money  ? 

Go  to  the  circus,  and  behold  an  immense  concourse  of  rational  be- 
ings, assembled  to  see  a  man  ride  round  in  a  circle,  standing  on  two 
horses,  or  standing  on  one  leg,  or  leaping  upon  a  horse  at  full  speed ! 
Is  this  the  business  of  man  ? 

Go  to  the  gaming  table  ;  behold  a  circle  of  gentlemen,  and  of  ladies 
too,  intensely  employed,  for  hours  together,  to  win  money  from  each 
other,  by  dexterity  or  by  fraud — or  see  the  bold  adventurer  stake  his 
fortune  and  the  subsistence  of  his  family  on  the  cast  of  a  die,  or  a  stroke 
of  the  mace  !  Is  this  the  proper  employment  of  rational  beings,  and 
the  legitimate  use  of  money  ? 

Then  go  to  the  theater,  and  witness  the  proud  distinction  of  a  player 
— the  bursts  of  applause  bestowed  on  the  man  who  can  most  exactly 
dress  and  speak  and  act  and  laugh  and  strut  like  the  person  he  repre- 
sents— who  can  best  mimick  a  prince,  a  fop,  or  a  clown !  Is  tliis  the 
proper  employment  of  man? 


268  ADDRESS    ON   AGRICULTURE. 

To  complete  a  view  of  human  folly,  go  to  a  bull-baiting — ^yes,  a  bull- 
baiting  in  a  civilized,  a  Christian  country  !  And  what  is  the  entertain- 
ment, and  who  the  spectators  ?  Why  princes  and  nobles,  gentlemen 
and  ladies,  assembled  by  thousands,  to  see  a  rational  being  tease  and 
fight  a  bull ! 

What  sort  of  employments  are  these  for  intellectual  beings  ?  What 
is  the  loss  of  time  and  the  expense  of  money,  in  these  diversions  ? 
Sufficient  perhaps  every  year  to  convert  a  wilderness  into  a  garden,  or 
to  Christianize  a  whole  empire  of  pagans  ! 

My  friends,  men  have  wandered  from  the  path  of  their  duty — they 
have  abandoned  the  employment  assigned  to  them  by  their  Maker. 
Let  men  of  wealth  and  distinction  resume  their  proper  employment, 
and  instead  of  leaving  the  cultivation  of  the  earth  to  peasants  and 
slaves,  let  them  devote  their  time  and  their  capital  to  agriculture ;  let 
them  enrich  their  country  by  their  improvements,  and  dignify  the  oc- 
cupation by  their  influence  and  example. , 

The  proper  business  of  man  is  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  his  mind 
by  knowledge,  and  refine  it  by  the  culture  of  moral  habits  ;  to  increase 
the  means  of  subsistence  and  comfort ;  to  supply  the  wants  and  alleviate 
the  distresses  of  his  brethren  ;  to  cherish  the  virtues  and  restrain  the 
vices  of  society ;  to  multiply  the  rational  enjoyments  of  life  ;  to  diffuse 
the  means  of  education,  and  the  blessings  of  religion ;  and  to  extend 
his  benevolence  and  charities  to  the  whole  human  family.  In  a  word, 
the  duty,  the  whole  business  of  man  is  to  yield  obedience  to  his  Maker ; 
and  just  in  proportion  to  that  obedience,  will  be  the  private  happiness, 
and  the  public  prosperity  of  a  nation. 


269 


CHAPTER    XI. 
A   LETTER   TO   THE    HONORABLE   DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

(published    in    PHILADELPHIA    IN    1837.) 

To  the  Honorable  Daniel  Webster, — 
Sir — In  your  public  addresses  or  speeches,  and  in  those  of  other 
gentlemen  of  high  political  distinction,  I  have  often  seen  an  opinion 
expressed  like  this — That  intelligence  and  virtue  are  the  basis  of  a  re- 
publican government,  or  that  intelligence  and  virtue  in  the  people  are 
necessary  to  the  preservation  and  support  of  a  republican  government. 
These  \yords,  intelligence  and  virtue,  are  very  comprehensive  in  their 
uses  or  application,  and  perhaps  too  indefinite  to  furnish  the  premises 
for  the  inference  deduced  from  them.  Men  may  be  very  intelligent 
in  some  departments  of  literature,  ai-ts  and  science  ;  but  very  ignorant 
of  branches  of  learning  in  other  departments.  By  intelligence,  as 
applicable  to  political  affairs,  it  may  be  presumed  that  those  who  use 
the  term,  intend  it  to  imply  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  the  country,  and  of  the  several  rights  and  duties  of  the  citizens. 

But,  sir,  the  opinion  that  intelligence  in  the  people  of  a  country  will 
preserve  a  republican  government,  must  depend,  for  its  accuracy,  on 
the  fact  of  an  intimate,  or  necessary  connection  between  knowledge  and 
principle.  It  must  suppose  that  men  who  know  what  is  right,  will  do 
what  is  right :  for  if  this  is  not  the  general  fact,  then  intelligence  will 
not  preserve  a  just  administration,  nor  maintain  the  constitution  and 
laws.  But  from  what  evidence  can  we  infer  that  men  who  know  what 
is  right  will  do  what  is  right  ?  In  what  history  of  mankind,  political 
or  ecclesiastical,  are  the  facts  recoi'ded,  which  authorize  the  presump- 
tion, much  less  the  belief,  that  correct  action  will  proceed  from  correct 
knowledge  ?  Such  an  effect  would  imply  the  absence  of  all  depravity 
in  the  hearts  of  men  ;  a  supposition  which  not  only  revelation,  but  all 
history  forbids  us  to  admit. 

Let  me  ask,  sir,  whether  the  Greeks,  and  particularly  the  Athenians, 
were  not  an  intelligent  people  ?  Were  they  not  intelligent  when  they 
banished  the  ablest  statesmen  and  generals,  and  the  purest  patriots  of 
their  state  ?  Was  their  intelligence  sufficient  to  insure,  at  all  times,  a 
just  administration  of  the  laws  ?  In  short,  if  intelligence  could  pre- 
serve a  republic,  why  were  not  the  Grecian  republics  preserved  ? 

Then  let  us  turn  our  attention  to  the  Roman  state.  Were  not  Sylla 
and  Marius  intelligent  men,  when  they  rent  the  commonwealth  with 
faction,  and  deluged  Rome  with  blood  >  Were  not  Csesar  and  Anthony 
and  Lepidus,  and  Crassus  and  Brutus  and  Octavianus,  intelligent  men  ? 
Did  not  the  Roman  commonwealth  fall  into  ruins  in  the  most  enlight- 
ened period  of  its  existence  ?  And  were  not  the  immediate  instruments 
of  its  overthrow  some  of  the  most  intelligent  men  that  the  pagan  world 
has  produced  ? 


270  A    LETTER    TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL   WEBSTER. 

Then  look  at  France  during  the  revolution,  when  there  was  no  set- 
tled government  to  control  reason.  Were  not  the  leading  men  of  the 
parties  intelligent  men  ? — men  who  cut  off  the  heads  of  their  opponents, 
with  as  little  ceremony  as  they  would  tread  a  worm  under  their  feet, 
and  for  the  sake  of  liberty.  When  one  party  was  crushed,  the  others 
cried  out,  the  republic  or  liberty  is  safe.  When  another  party  fell 
under  the  guillotin,  then  the  triumphant  party  shouted,  liberty  is  safe. 
But  after  all,  the  republic  was  not  saved ;  and  all  parties  at  last  were 
glad  to  find  peace  and  security  under  a  throne. 

Intelligence  alone  then  has  not  yet  saved  any  republic.  But  intelli- 
gence, it  is  said,  must  be  accompanied  with  virtue^  and  these  united  are 
to  give  duration  to  a  republic. 

Now,  sir,  what  is  this  virtue  7  what  does  it  mean  in  the  sentiment 
or  opinion  above  cited  ?  What  did  Montesquieu  intend  by  virtue, 
when  he  wrote  about  its  influence  in  preserving  a  republic  ? — (Spirit  of 
Laws,  passim.) 

The  virtue  of  a  Roman  citizen  consisted  in  personal  bravery,  and  in 
devotion  to  the  defense  and  extent  of  the  commonwealth.  In  particular 
men  there  existed  a  strong  sense  of  right  or  political  duty,  which  may 
take  rank  as  a  moral  virtue.  But  such  instances  were  rare,  and  most 
rare  in  the  decline  of  the  commonwealth,  when  the  citizens  were  most 
intelligent.  But  in  general,  the  virtue  of  the  Romans  was  a  passionate 
attachment  to  the  commonwealth,  for  the  grandeur  of  which  they  fought 
and  conquered,  till  they  had  brought  the  civilized  world  to  the  feet  of 
the  republic.  This  virtue  extended  the  dominion,  but  did  not  secure 
the  existence  of  the  republic. 

If  by  virtue  is  intended  the  observance  of  the  common  social  duties, 
this  may  proceed  from  a  respect  for  custom,  and  a  regard  to  reputation  ; 
and  either,  with  or  without  better  principles,  is  a  useful  practice. 

But  such  virtue  as  this  will  not  save  a  republic,  unless  based  on  better 
principles  than  a  regard  to  custom  or  to  reputation.  The  reason  is  ob- 
vious ;  such  morality  will  often,  not  to  say  generally,  yield  to  selfish- 
ness ;  that  is,  to  the  ambition  of  obtaining  power  and  wealth.  When 
strongly  tempted  by  private  interest,  men  often  find  the  means  of  en- 
listing reason  in  its  service  ;  and  invent  excuses  for  disregarding  the 
public  good,  which  ought  to  be,  and  for  the  preservation  of  republican 
government  must  be,  the  ruling  motive  of  citizens. 

The  virtue  which  is  necessary  to  preserve  a  just  administration  and 
render  a  government  stable,  is  Christian  virtue,  which  consists  in  the 
uniform  practice  of  moral  and  religious  duties,  in  conformity  with  the 
laws  both  of  God  and  man.  This  virtue  must  be  based  on  a  reverence 
for  the  authority  of  God,  which  shall  counteract  and  control  ambition 
and  selfish  views,  and  subject  them  to  the  precepts  of  divine  authority. 
The  effect  of  such  a  virtue  would  be,  to  bring  the  citizens  of  a  state  to 
vote  and  act  for  the  good  of  the  state,  whether  that  should  coincide  with 
their  private  interest  or  not.  But  when  or  where  has  this  virtue  been 
possessed  by  all  the  citizens,  or  even  by  a  majority  of  the  citizens  of  a 
state  }  History  does  not  authorize  us  to  believe  that  such  virtue  has 
ever  existed  in  the  body  of  citizens  in  any  community  ;  or  to  presume 
that  such  a  community  will  ever  exist. 


A   LETTER   TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL    WEBSTER.  271 

If  such  virtue  as  this  can  be  introduced  into  a  community,  the  opin- 
ion that  intelligence  and  virtue  will  preserve  a  republic,  may  be  well 
founded.  But  with  respect  to  intelligence,  it  may  be  questioned  whether 
such  a  portion  of  it  can  be  imparted  to  the  mass  of  citizens  as  will 
secure  the  public  from  the  most  injurious,  if  not  fatal,  mistakes.  And 
as  to  genuine  virtue,  based  on  divine  authority,  are  we  authorized  to 
expect  this  to  exist,  unless  in  a  millennial  state  ? 

But  if  a  correct  understanding  of  the  public  interest  would,  in  any 
case,  secure  a  pure  administration,  under  wise  and  impartial  rulers, 
how  is  it  possible  to  prevent  deception  and  mistake  among  the  people  .'' 
The  press  must  be  free,  and  if  free,  it  will  often  be  used  as  the  instru- 
ment of  deception.  How  is  this  evil  to  be  prevented  ?  If  it  can  not 
be  prevented,  then  the  use  of  intelligence  is  defeated. 

It  appears  to  me,  sir,  that  there  are  radical  errors  in  the  opinions  of 
our  citizens  in  regard  to  the  principles  on  which  a  republican  govern- 
ment is  to  be  founded,  and  the  means  by  which  it  is  to  be  supported. 
The  constitutions  of  government  in  the  United  States  commence  with 
a  declaration  of  certain  abstract  principles,  or  general  and  indefinite 
propositions ;  as  that  all  men  are  born  free  and  equal,  or  all  men  are 
created  equal.  But  as  universal  propositions,  can  they  be  true  .•'  In 
what  sense  are  men  born  free  ?  If  they  are  born  under  a  despotic 
government,  they  are  not  bomaree.  But  in  any  government,  children 
are  born,  subject  to  the  control  of  their  parents,  and  this  by  the  express 
ordinance  of  the  Creator.  No  man  will  question  the  right  or  the  ex- 
pedience of  parental  government ;  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  child  that 
he  should  not  be  free,  till  he  has  acquired  strength  to  procure  his  own 
subsistence,  and  knowledge  or  wisdom  to  direct  his  voluntary  actions. 

The  general  proposition  then,  that  all  men  are  born  free,  is  the 
reverse  of  the  truth,  for  no  person  is  born  free,  in  the  general  accepta- 
tion of  the  word  free. 

In  what  sense  then  are  men  born  equal  7  Is  it  true  that  all  men  are 
furnished  with  equal  force  of  constitution,  or  physical  strength  }  Is  it 
true  that  all  men  are  endowed  by  the  Creator  with  equal  intellectual 
powers  ?  No  person  will  contend  for  an  affirmative  answer  to  these 
questions.  Men  are  not  formed  with  equal  powers  of  body  or  mind  ; 
and  if  they  were,  the  race  would  be  an  exception  from  all  other  works 
of  the  Creator,  in  which  a  prominent  feature  is  diversities  without  end, 
even  in  the  same  genus  and  species. 

Equally  indefinite  is  the  proposition,  that  all  men  are  entitled  to  the 
enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty.  They  are  entitled  to  life,  unless  it  has 
been  forfeited ;  but  even  life  is  to  be  enjoyed,  upon  the  conditions  pre- 
scribed by  law,  for  the  enjoyment  of  life  must  be  in  consistency  only 
with  the  public  safety.  The  enjoyment  of  liberty  is  subject  to  a  like 
restriction.  No  society  can  exist  without  restricting  the  liberty  of  every 
member  by  the  laws  or  will  of  the  community  ;  for  it  is  a  first  princi- 
ple of  the  social  state,  that  every  member  must  so  use  his  own  liberty, 
as  not  to  injure  or  impair  the  rights  of  another. 

It  would  seem  then  to  be  clearly  proved,  that  the  general  principles 
assumed  by  the  framers  of  our  government,  are  too  indefinite  to  be  the 
basis  of  constitutional  provision.  The  natural  freedom  of  men  must 
be  restrained  by  regulations  which  are  essential  to  the  public  safety, 


272  A   LETTER   TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

and  to  that  of  every  individual.  This  freedom  is  civil  liberty,  that  is, 
the  liberty  which  the  law  permits  each  citizen  to  enjoy.  Even  in  a 
savage  state,  the  liberty  of  each  individual  must  be  under  some  re- 
straint, or  no  individual  can  be  safe. 

The  principle  then  which  must  be  the  basis  of  a  good  constitution,  is, 
that  every  member  of  the  community  or  state  is  entitled  to  all  the  free- 
dom which  the  laws  permit,  and  which  is  compatible  with  the  public 
safety.  This  is  the  right  of  every  citizen ;  and  in  the  possession  of  this 
right,  every  man  is  equal. 

It  is  believed,  however,  that  the  loose,  undefined  sense  in  which  the 
words  free  and  equal  are  used  in  some  of  the  American  constitutions, 
has  been  and  will,  be  a  source  of  immense  evil  to  this  country.  lUite- 
i^te  men  will  mistake  the  just  limitation  of  the  words,  and  unprincipled 
men  will  give  them  a  latitude  of  construction  incompatible  with  the 
peace  of  society. 

There  is,  in  my  apprehension,  a  common  mistake  in  this  country,  in 
regard  to  the  nature  of  democratic  and  republican  governments.  It 
seems  to  be  held  as  a  truth  not  to  be  questioned,  that  a  republican  gov- 
ernment is  of  course  a  free  government,  or  a  government  which,  by 
the  very  fact  that  it  springs  from  the  people,  will  certainly  secure  to 
the  citizens  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights. 

That  a  proper  democracy,  in  which  the  whole  body  of  citizens  con- 
stitute the  legislature,  is  a  turbulent  government,  is  a  fact  too  well 
established  by  historical  evidence  to  be  disputed.  But  it  seems  to  be 
generally  understood,  that  a  government  by  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple, is  not  subject  to  the  same  evil ;  and  that  such  a  government  will 
not  abuse  its  powers  and  oppress  the  people.  In  short,  it  is  generally 
believed  that,  in  a  republic,  liberty  is  safe. 

One  reason  for  this  general  belief  may  be,  that  the  history  of  the 
nations  in  the  old  world,  and  particularly  in  Asia,  has,  from  time  im- 
memorial, exhibited  monarchs  as  tyrants.  It  seems  to  be  taken  for 
granted 4hat  all  monarchies,  all  kingly  governments,  are  tyrannies. 

This,  as  a  general  fact  in  past  ages,  may  be  admitted.  But  con- 
nected with  this  subject,  there  are  some  popular  errors  which  ought  to 
be  corrected. 

1.  The  tyranny  of  a  monarch  depends  on  his  disposition.  If  one 
man  has  the  sole  power  of  making  laws,  the  government  is  arbitrary  in 
form,  but  the  administration  of  it  may  be  mild  or  tyrannical,  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  prince.  And  it  often  happens  that  a  monarch  admin- 
isters the  government  in  such  a  manner  as  to  do  equal  justice,  and 
secure  to  all  his  subjects  their  rights  or  all  the  liberty  which  they  desire. 

2.  In  modern  Europe,  in  nations  civilized,  and  in  which  a  great  por- 
tion of  the  citizens  are  educated  men,  cultivating  arts  and  science,  and 
carrying  on  trade  and  manufactures,  monarchs  can  not  exercise  tyran- 
nical power.  In  such  nations,  the  public  sense  of  rights,  to  which  the 
citizens  are  entitled,  restrains  kings  from  acts  of  oppression.  This 
improved  state  of  society,  which  began  with  the  revival  of  learning, 
arts  and  commerce,  in  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth  century,  for  ever 
precludes  the  possibility  of  the  establishment  and  continuance  of  tyran- 
nical governments  in  the  western  portion  of  Europe.  Men,  understand- 
ing the  principles  of  freedom,  and  possessing  property,  can  not  be  re- 
duced to  the  vassalage  of  former  ages. 


A   LETTER   TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL   WEBSTER.  273 

3.  The  kingdoms  of  France  and  England  are  not,  in  the  true  sense 
of  the  word,  monarchies.  Their  governments  are  a  mixture  or  union 
of  aristocracy  and  republicanism.  The  kings  are  hereditary  executive 
magistrates,  but  they  have  not  the  power  to  make  a  single  law,  and  of 
course  can  not  exercise  arbitrary  government  over  the  citizens.  In 
this  respect,  the  kings  are  as  essentially  restrained  from  acts  of  tyranny, 
as  the  president  of  the  United  States.  The  house  of  peers  is  an  aristo- 
cratical  body,  possessing  powers  of  government  by  virtue  of  title  or 
rank  ;  but  the  commons,  elected  by  the  people,  are  a  republican  body. 
These  houses  are  complete  checks  upon  each  other,  by  which  the 
rights  of  both  are  secured  ;  and  both  are  a  complete  check  upon 
the  king. 

Now  the  great  source  of  mistake  yi  this  country  is,  that  monarchies 
have  generally  been  characterized  by  arbitrary  and  oppressive  govern- 
ment ;  and  particularly  in  rude  ages  and  uncivilized  countries,  where 
the  mass  of  the  population  have  had  neither  learning  nor  property. 
This  fact  being  well  known,  and  incessantly  proclaimed  by  our  patriotic 
conductors  of  the  revolution,  has  produced  in  the  minds  of  American 
citizens,  an  extreme  odium  against  all  monarchies,  leading  them  to 
make  royal  government  and  tyranny  synonymous  terms,  and  impress- 
ing the  belief  or  opinion,  that  a  sure  remedy  and  the  only  remedy  for 
the  evil,  is  to  be  found  in  a  republican  form  of  government. 

Both  these  opinions,  carried  to  the  extent,  are  incorrect.  The  gov- 
ernments in  the  civilized  parts  of  Europe,  with  kings  at  the  head  of 
them,  are  not  tyrannies.  So  far  from  it,  that  the  citizens  in  those 
countries  consider  themselves  as  free  as  they  wish  to  be,  and  perfectly 
well  protected  in  their  rights.  I  leave  out  of  this  representation  the 
oppression  which  the  people  of  England  suffer  from  old  establishments 
and  monopolies,  which  had  their  origin  in  ages  of  ignorance  ;  for  these 
are,  in  many  cases,  extremely  oppressive.  But  to  the  form  of  the 
government,  to  royalty,  and  to  the  general  administration  of  the  laws, 
the  people  have  no  objection.  On  the  other  hand,  they  are  strongly 
attached  to  them,  and  would  by  no  means  exchange  the  form  of  the 
government  for  any  other. 

Equally  incorrect  is  the  opinion,  that  a  republican  government  is  of 
course  a  free  government,  or  one  that  of  course  will  secure  to  the  citi- 
zens all  their  just  rights.  So  far  is  this  from  being  true,  that  democra- 
cies and  republics  may  be,  and  have  often  been,  as  tyrannical  as 
monarchies. 

The  principle  that  our  statesmen  have  universally  adopted  and  pro- 
claimed, that  the  people  in  a  state  or  community  are  the  only  legiti- 
mate source  of  power,  is  just ;  all  government  ought  to  have  its  origin 
in  the  will  of  those  who  are  to  be  governed.  But  in  the  application  of 
this  principle,  our  theorists  and  statesmen  have  overlooked,  or  not  suffi- 
ciently regarded  one  important  fact,  that  in  framing  a  constitution,  it  is 
as  necessary  to  guard  against  the  tyranny  of  the  people^  as  it  is  to 
guard  against  the  tyranny  of  kings  and  nobles. 

How  could  those  distinguished  men  overlook  the  fact,  that  all  men 
are  made  with  like  passions  ;  that  men  of  all  classes,  whether  kings, 
nobles,  priests,  or  working  men,  have  the  same  love  of  power  and 
property,  the  same  ambition,  the  same  selfishness,  the  same  jealousies  ; 

35 


274  A    LETTER    TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

in  short,  the  same  disposition  to  rise  above  their  fellows,  by  advance- 
ment in  wealth  and  power,  and  the  same  depravity  or  want  of  good 
principles  to  control  their  passions  ?  All  history  testifies  that  the  peo- 
ple, when  they  possess  uncontrolled  power,  often  use  that  power  as 
tyrannically  as  kings  and  nobles.  Their  tyranny,  if  not  as  steady,  is 
usually  more  violent  and  inexorable  than  that  of  kings,  as  their  pas- 
sions are  under  less  restraint  from  honor,  education,  or  responsibility, 
and  exasperated  or  stimulated  by  numbers. 

From  an  inattention  to  this  truth,  that  all  men  would  be  kings  if 
they  could,  and  tyrants  if  they  durst,  our  patriotic  fathers,  while  they 
have  fortified  the  constitution  against  the  introduction  of  kings  and 
nobles,  have  not  sufficiently  guarded  it  against  an  abuse  of  power  by 
the  people.  Hence  the  frequent  outbreakings  of  popular  tyranny  ;  the 
people,  or  portions  of  them,  rising  in  multitudes,  above  all  law,  and 
violating  the  rights  of  property,  and  personal  safety. 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  we  may  advert  to  a  remarkable  ex- 
ample of  the  influence  of  names  or  words,  on  the  mass  of  people  who 
have  not  discriminating  or  just  views  of  men,  and  of  the  nature  and 
tendency  of  political  measures.  The  use  of  the  word  republican  has, 
by  its  own  magic,  revolutionized  public  sentiment  in  this  country.  So 
popular  is  a  republican  government  in  this  country,  that  the  man  who 
aims  at  office,  or  the  printer  who  aims  at  extensive  patronage,  takes 
the  name  of  a  republican,  as  a  sure  passport  to  his  object.  This  prac- 
tice proceeds  in  general  from  honest  views ;  but  in  the  demagogue,  it  is 
often  assumed  to  cover  the  most  dangerous  designs.  The  name,  how- 
ever, has  its  effect,  and  an  artful  popular  man  may,  with  this  passport, 
travel  to  a  throne,  before  the  mass  of  a  nation  discover  his  views. 
Among  a  people  jealous  of  power,  the  only  way  by  which  an  ambitious 
man  can  gain  superior  and  unequal  power,  is  to  make  the  people  be- 
lieve him  to  be  the  friend  of  equal  rights  and  equal  power. 

It  is  admitted,  on  all  hands,  that  the  senate  in  the  American  consti- 
tutions, was  designed  not  only  to  give  to  legislative  proceedings  a  more 
full  discussion  of  important  questions,  but  to  check  and  control  any 
violent,  rash,  and  precipitate  measures  of  the  more  numerous  branch 
of  the  legislature.  This  purpose  it  has  often  accomplished.  But  there 
appears  to  be  a  defect  in  the  mode  of  constituting  this  body,  which 
may  frustrate  the  design.  This  defect  is  in  the  election  of  senators  by 
the  same  constituents  as  the  representatives  in  the  other  branch.  Now, 
the  way  to  render  the  senate  an  inefficient  check  upon  the  house  of 
representatives,  is  to  bring  the  body  of  constituents  to  have  the  same 
views  of  public  men  and  measures,  and  they  will  elect  men  of  similar 
views  to  both  houses.  In  this  case,  there  is  no  check  of  one  house 
upon  the  other.  In  many  cases  of  legislation,  this  would  be  no  evil. 
But  in  times  of  party  violence,  the  want  of  this  check,  or  the  loss  of 
the  proper  balance  in  the  constitution,  may  endanger  the  very  existence 
of  the  government ;  or  when  this  consequence  does  not  follow,  it  may 
derange  the  operations  of  the  government,  by  giving  to  the  executive 
an  improper  exercise  of  power,  and  utterly  defeating  the  purposes  of 
impeachment. 

The  most  obvious  method  of  preserving  a  proper  balance  in  the  con- 
stitution, and  creating  an  effectual  check  of  one  branch  upon  the  other. 


A    LETTER    TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL    WEBSTER.  275 

is  to  place  the  election  of  the  two  branches  in  different  hands.  In  this 
country,  where  tlierc  are  no  distinct  orders  or  ranks  of  men,  and  none 
can  be  admitted,  this  constitution  of  the  two  houses  by  different  electors, 
may  be  the  only  mode  of  securing  the  separate  independent  action  of 
the  two  branches. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  do  not  consist  of  two  distinct  orders 
of  men,  nobles  and  commonalty,  as  is  the  case  in  England.  But  the 
distinction  of  rich  and  poor  does  exist,  and  must  always  exist ;  no  human 
power  or  device  can  prevent  it.  This  distinction  produces  jealousies, 
different  interests  and  rivalship,  wj^ich,  if  not  effectually  controlled  by 
the  government,  may  agitate  the  state  or  even  overthrow  it.  Both 
classes  of  citizens  are  to  be  protected  in  their  rights,  and  each  class 
must  have  power  to  defend  its  own  rights  against  the  invasions  of  the 
other.  The  poorer  class  must  be  as  effectually  secured  against  the 
powers  of  the  rich,  as  the  rich  are  against  the  turbulence  of  the  popu- 
lace. How  this  object  is  to  be  effected  in  this  country,  where  there  is 
no  distinction  of  rank,  is  a  problem  not  easily  solved.  But  it  must  be 
solved ;  the  two  classes  must  be  equally  secured  in  their  rights,  and 
each  have  a  complete  check  upon  every  attempt  of  the  other  to  invade 
its  rights  ;  or  there  can  be  neither  harmony  nor  durable  tranquillity  in 
tlie  state. 

This  great  object  of  making  each  class  of  men  so  independent  of  the 
other  in  government,  as  to  allay  jealousy  and  party  strife,  and  settle 
every  question  of  rivalship  by  the  peaceable  process  of  discussion  and 
voting,  must  be  accomplished  by  constitutional  provisions.  It  must  not 
•be  left  for  each  party  to  seek  its  share  of  power  and  influence  by  in- 
trigue, corruption,  or  the  influence  of  the  press.  This  mode  will  excite 
perpetual  feuds,  engender  evil  passions,  and  incessantly  agitate  the  pub- 
lic mind.  The  mode  of  preventing  all  such  strife  and  agitation,  must 
be  by  definite  constitutional  provisions. 

To  effect  this  object,  the  most  simple  process  would  be  to  separate 
the  electors  into  two  classes,  the  qualifications  of  one  of  which  shall 
be  superior  age,  and  the  possession  of  a  certain  amount  of  property  ; 
while  the  other  class  of  voters  shall  comprehend  those  who  have  not 
the  same  qualifications.  These  two  classes  may  be  independent  of 
each  other  in  elections,  and  their  representatives  compose  different 
houses,  each  with  a  negative  upon  the  acts  of  the  other. 

Some  provision  of  this  kind  will  probably  be  found  indispensable  to 
the  due  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  different  classes  of  citizens ;  and 
universal  suffrage,  without  some  such  provision,  will  destroy  that  equal- 
ity of  rights  which  our  constitution  was  intended  to  maintain. 

To  understand  the  operation  of  universal  suffrage,  we  must  consider 
that  there  are  two  kinds  of  rights  to  be  secured  by  government — the 
rights  of  person  and  the  rights  of  property.  The  rights  of  person  are 
eqtcal,  in  all  classes  of  men.  The  protection  of  the  person  of  the  poor 
man  is  of  as  high  a  nature,  and  of  as  much  importance  in  a  code  of 
laws,  as  the  protection  of  the  person  of  the  rich  man  ;  and  the  one 
must  be  as  well  guarded  by  the  constitution  and  laws  as  the  other.  In 
this  respect,  both  classes  of  men  have  an  equal  interest  in  the  gov- 
ernment. 


276  A    LETTER    TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

Not  SO  with  regard  to  the  rights  of  property.  The  man  who  has 
half  a  milUon  dollars  in  property,  and  pays  five  hundred  or  a  thousand 
dollars  annually  to  support  the  government  and  laws  which  protect  the 
poor  man  as  well  as  the  rich,  has  a  much  higher  interest  in  the  govern- 
ment, than  the  man  who  has  little  or  no  property,  and  pays  nothing 
for  the  protection  of  his  oicn  person  and  the  propei'ty  of  others.  With- 
out some  provision  recognizing  this  distinction,  and  giving  to  men  of 
property  the  means  of  securing  it,  and  regulating  the  disposal  of  it, 
without  being  wholly  subject  to  the  power  of  those  who  have  little  or 
no  property,  universal  suffrage  ma;U|become  the  instrument  of  injustice 
to  the  most  enormous  extent.  AVhat  can  be  more  absurd  and  more 
inconsistent  with  a  republican  government,  whose  principle  is  the  secu- 
rity of  equal  rights,  than  that  the  owners  of  property  should  not  have 
the  right  to  govern  it ;  or  that  those  who  have  no  property  or  the  least 
share  of  it,  should  have  the  power  to  control  the  property  of  others ! 
A  constitution  based  on  such  a  principle,  must  sooner  or  later  produce 
consequences  fatal  to  just  rights.  And  it  is  of  no  use  to  the  poor :  for 
in  the  protection  of  personal  rights  all  men  have  an  equal  interest,  and 
the  rich  have  the  same  motives  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  poor,  as  they 
have  to  protect  their  own.  But  it  is  otherwise  with  regard  to  the  rights 
of  property,  which  the  poor  have  not  the  same  motives  to  protect,  as 
those  have  who  own  it ;  and  nineteen  twentieths  of  the  laws  of  all  com- 
mercial states  respect  property. 

The  constitution  of  the  executive  department  of  government  involves 
questions  of  the  highest  concern. 

From  the  principle  that  the  people  or  great  body  of  citizens  in  a  free 
state  are  the  sources  of  all  legitimate  power  in  government,  it  is  under- 
stood that  in  them  resides  the  right  of  selecting,  not  only  the  men  who 
mature  the  laws,  but  the  men  who  are  to  execute  them.  The  govern- 
ment of  some  of  the  New  England  colonies,  from  their  first  institution, 
recognized  this  right,  and  it  is  now  recognized  in  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  as  also  by  all  the  state  constitutions. 

On  the  assumed  principle,  that  the  electors  in  a  great  nation  can 
know  and  will  do  what  is  right  or  expedient  in  every  case  of  exercising 
the  elective  franchise,  this  provision  in  a  republican  government  is  just 
and  wise.  But  the  premises  here  supposed  have  not  been  found  to  ex- 
ist in  all  the  experiments  of  elective  governments ;  and  the  factions 
which  have  been  generated  by  competitions  for  the  high  office  of  chief 
magistrate,  have  produced  such  tremendous  evils,  that  most  nations 
have  a  settled  conviction  that  it  is  better  to  trust  to  hereditary  succession 
for  a  chief  magistrate,  than  to  a  popular  election.  The  history  of  Po- 
land furnishes  valuable  materials  for  judging  correctly  on  this  subject. 

The  people  of  this  country  are  making  the  experiment  of  electing 
their  chief  magistrates  and  most  of  their  executive  officers.  The  result 
of  this  experiment  is  not  finally  determined ;  and  prudence  requires 
that  we  should  not  confidently  predict  what  the  issue  will  be. 

In  the  mean  time,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  suggest  some  thoughts 
on  the  subject,  with  a  view  to  call  public  attention  to  the  evils  which 
exist,  and  to  the  remedy. 

The  first  suggestion  is,  that  in  a  country  of  such  extent  as  the  United 
States,  it  is  difficult,  not  to  say  impracticable,  for  the  whole  body  of 


A    LETTER   TO   THE   HONORABLE    DANIEL   WEBSTER.  277 

electors  to  have  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  candidates  to  form  an 
accurate  estimate  of  their  respective  characters,  and  be  enabled  to  select 
the  most  suitable  person.  The  difficulty  is  increased  tenfold,  by  the 
representations  given  of  their  characters  by  the  friends  and  the  oppo- 
sers  of  the  different  candidates,  through  the  medium  of  the  press. 

The  second  suggestion  is,  that  a  great  mass  of  people  are  and  always 
must  be  very  incompetent  judges  of  the  qualifications  necessary  for  the 
chief  magistrate  of  a  great  nation.  The  populace  are  often  influenced 
by  the  splendid  achievements  more  than  by  the  solid  talents  of  the  can- 
didates ;  yet  a  man  may  gain  a  great  victory  on  land  or  water,  without 
the  most  ordinary  qualifications  for  a  chief  magistrate. 

The  third  suggestion  is,  that  when  party  spirit  is  violent,  the  people 
imbibe  such  strong  prejudices  as  to  disqualify  them  for  exercising  a 
temperate,  unbiased  judgment. 

There  is  a  great  defect  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  which, 
if  permitted  to  exist,  will  ultimately  shake  the  government  to  its  center. 
This  defect  is,  the  want  of  some  effectual  provision  to  prevent  candi- 
dates from  seeking  the  office  of  chief  magistrate  by  corrupt  and  illegal 
means.  So  long  as  the  President  has  the  bestowment  of  most  of  the 
offices,  and  the  power  of  removal  from  office,  at  pleasure,  the  most 
daring  and  unprincipled  intriguer  for  the  office  has  the  best  chance  of 
success.  It  is  hardly  to  be  conceived  how  wide  the  avenues  of  cor- 
ruption and  undue  influence  are  laid  open  by  the  possession  of  these 
powers.  These  avenues  must  be  closed,  or  the  most  important  feature 
in  a  republican  government,  the  right  of  election,  will  be  defaced,  an- 
nihilated, or  converted  into  an  instrument  of  ruin. 

There  is  perhaps  no  mistake  as  to  the  proper  mode  of  constituting 
and  maintaining  a  republic,  which  is  so  menacing  to  the  purity  and  sta- 
bility of  our  institutions,  as  that  of  vesting  the  right  of  electing  execu- 
tive and  judicial  officers  in  the  people  ;  and  the  more  frequent  the  elec- 
tions, the  more  dangerous  will  be  the  exercise  of  this  right.  There 
appears  to  be  no  method  of  weakening  the  execution  of  the  laws,  so 
efiectual,  as  to  make  executive  and  judicial  officers  dependent  for  their 
offices  on  annual  elections  by  the  people.  When  a  law  is  popular,  and 
all  men  concur  in  the  propriety  of  its  execution,  the  law  will  be  exe- 
cuted. The  murderer,  the  robber,  and  the  thief  will  be  punished,  by 
universal  consent.  But  when  a  law  bears  hard  upon  any  portion  of 
citizens,  the  officers  will  often  wink  at  violations  rather  than  risk  the 
loss  of  their  re-election.  If  there  are  exceptions  to  this  remark,  yet  it 
will  generally  prove  to  be  true. 

The  independence  of  the  judiciary  has  been  a  theme  of  eulogy  ever 
since  it  was  secured  to  the  judges  of  the  higher  courts  in  Great  Britain. 
It  is  said  to  have  been  established  with  a  view  to  secure  impartial  de- 
cisions, in  opposition  to  the  influence  of  the  crown.  Be  it  so  ;  but  it 
is  equally  necessary  to  raise  the  judges  above  the  influence  of  the  citi- 
zens in  a  republican  government.  It  is  even  more  necessary,  as  the 
danger  of  losing  the  office  by  offending  the  electors,  occurs  more  fre- 
quently and  steadily  in  a  government  like  ours,  than  the  danger  of  los- 
ing the  office  in  Great  Britain  does  by  offending  the  king.  And  it  is 
surprising  that  the  obvious  good  effects  of  this  independence  in  judges, 
in  securing  unbiased  decisions,  have  not  induced  our  legislators  to  ex- 


278  A    LETTER    TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

tend  the  same  independence  to  inferior  courts,  and  to  many  executive 
officers. 

It  is  a  mistake,  and  a  most  mischievous  one,  to  suppose  that  annual 
or  frequent  elections  are  the  proper  correctives  of  mal-administration  in 
judges  and  executive  officers.  The  proper  correctives  are  impeach- 
ment or  other  punishment ;  not  the  popular  odium  against  an  officer 
which  may  be  excited  without  just  cause,  and  even  by  the  most  meri- 
torious acts  of  the  officer  in  the  faithful  discharge  of  his  duty. 

The  proper  rule  in  our  governments  appears  to  be  this.  The  citizens 
composing  the  state,  being  the  sources  of  power,  should  be  the  constit- 
uents of  the  legislature  ;  but  the  legislature,  or  a  council  designated  for 
the  purpose,  should  be  the  appointing  power,  and  also  the  impeaching 
or  punishing  power.  This  is  the  fact  now  in  regard  to  many  officers 
in  our  state  governments.  The  appointing  power  should  not  be  invest- 
ed in  a  single  magistrate  elected  by  the  people,  unless  some  provision 
can  be  made  to  restrain  him  effectually  from  using  the  power  to  secure 
his  election.     And  how  is  this  to  be  done  ? 

The  office  of  president  is  a  prize  of  too  much  magnitude  not  to  ex- 
cite perpetual  dissensions ;  and  if  the  contentions  for  the  office  of  chief 
magistrate,  do  not  ultimately  overthrow  our  constitution,  it  will  be  a 
miracle.  It  is  desirable,  however,  that  the  experiment  should  be  fully 
tried,  to  determine  whether  our  government,  with  this  feature,  can  be 
rendered  permanent. 

A  mode  of  electing  the  president  may  be  devised  which  shall  preclude 
the  possibility  of  his  using  undue  influence  to  obtain  the  office.  But 
the  practicability  of  introducing  such  a  mode  is  questionable. 

There  are  errors  of  opinion  on  the  subject  of  republican  government, 
so  long  cherished,  and  so  interwoven  with  the  habits  of  thinking  among 
our  citizens,  that  reasoning  will  not  remove  or  correct  them.  The 
opinion  that  the  rich  are  the  enemies  and  oppressors  of  the  poor,  in- 
dustriously propagated  by  designing  men  for  their  selfish  purposes ; 
and  the  opinion  that  all  incorporated  companies  are  aristocratic  in  their 
tendency,  are  among  the  false  and  most  pernicious  doctrines  that  ever 
cui*sed  a  nation.* 

Equally  injurious  to  the  public  interest  is  the  attempt  to  excite  jeal- 
ousies against  learning  and  the  seminaries  in  which  young  men  are  to 
be  qualified  for  the  professions  and  for  the  higher  offices  of  govern- 

*  It  is  often  said,  by  intelligent  men,  too,  that  the  rich  capitalists  arc  drones  in 
society,  living  on  the  industry  of  the  working  bees.  How  can  men  utter  such 
sentiments.' 

In  tliis  country,  as  a  general  fact,  the  rich  are  the  men  who  gain  their  property 
by  their  own  active  diligence,  economy,  and  good  judgment,  or  it  has  been  gained 
by  these  virtues  of  their  ancestors.  Are  reproach  and  disgrace  to  be  the  reward 
of  these  virtues  .' 

But  the  rich  do  not  live  on  the  labors  of  the  poor;  they  live  on  the  fruits  of  their 
own  industry  and  good  management,  or  those  of  their  ancestors.  More  than  this; 
the  rich  are  the  men  who  furnish  the  means  of  great  public  improvements,  either 
by  their  own  investments,  or  by  loans  to  government.  Such  means  can  not  be 
furnished  by  the  poor. 

But  further,  the  rich  are  the  support  of  the  poor,  by  giving  them  employment, 
which  they  can  not  otherwise  obtain.  The  rich  and  the  poor  are,  in  a  great  de- 
gree, dependent  on  each  other;  and  the  most  direct  mode  of  distressing  the  poor, 
is  first  to  destroy  the  business  and  the  prosperity  of  the  rich. 


A    LETTER   TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL    WEBSTER.  279 

ment.  This  war  against  superior  attainments  in  science,  and  against 
large  possessions  of  property,  is  a  most  suicidal  attempt  to  destroy  the 
dignity  of  the  state,  degrade  our  public  character,  and  check  the  spirit 
of  improvement.  The  effect  is,  to  raise  to  the  higher  offices,  men 
wholly  incompetent  to  discharge  their  duties  with  honor  and  advantage. 
To  these  dispositions  we  may  ascribe  the  derangement  of  our  financial 
concerns,  and  the  disturbance  of  the  usual  course  of  business,  produ- 
cing unparalleled  distresses  in  the  community.  The  extensive  and 
complicated  operations  of  finance,  in  a  great  commercial  nation,  can 
be  managed  only  by  men  of  long  practical  experience  and  observation. 
Men  of  narrow  views,  scanty  information,  and  strong  prejudices,  can 
not  regulate  commerce  and  finance.  Very  few  of  our  public  charac- 
ters are  competent  to  this  task. 

Another  most  pernicious  opinion  prevails,  that  the  legislator  is  to  fol- 
low the  wishes  of  his  particular  constituents,  called  the  people.  This 
opinion,  reduced  to  practice,  changes  the  legislator  into  a  mere  agent 
or  attorney  of  the  district  in  which  he  is  elected.  This  is  to  invert  the 
whole  order  of  things  in  legislation.  The  man  who  is  chosen  to  the 
legislature  by  a  city,  town,  or  county,  is  not  elected  to  make  laws  for 
that  particular  district,  but  for  the  whole  state.  He  then  becomes  the 
representative  of  the  state,  and  is  bound  by  his  duty  and  his  oath,  to 
act  for  the  interests  of  the  whole  state.  He  is  not  to  be  governed  by 
the  wishes  or  opinions  of  a  particular  district,  but  by  a  view  of  all  the 
interests  of  the  several  parts  of  the  state.  Probably  no  rule  of  public 
duty  is  more  frequently  violated  than  this. 

In  addition  to  this  consideration,  it  must  be  observed,  that  in  most 
CEises,  a  man's  constituents  in  a  particular  district,  have  not  the  means 
of  forming  correct  opinions,  and  are  as  likely  to  be  wrong  as  right. 
Examples  are  continually  presented  to  us  of  candidates  for  election 
pledging  themselves  if  elected  to  vote  for  or  against  a  particular  measure, 
when  the  opinions  of  their  constituents  are  mere  prejudices,  instilled 
into  their  minds  by  false  reasoning  and  misrepresentlraons,  and  the 
measures  they  expect  their  representative  to  advocate,  operate  directly 
against  their  own  interest. 

This  practice  of  looking  to  the  people  for  direction  destroys  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  representative,  and  must  often  reduce  him  to  a  mere 
machine,  obliging  him  to  act  in  direct  opposition  to  his  own  views  of 
what  is  right  and  expedient. 

The  object  of  assembling  representatives  from  all  parts  of  a  state,  is 
to  collect  a  knowledge  of  all  the  interests  of  the  whole  community  ;  to 
unite  the  counsels  of  intelligent  men,  and  from  the  concentrated  wis- 
dom of  the  whole,  to  adopt  measures  which  shall  promote  the  general 
welfare.  The  practice  of  taking  the  opinions  or  wishes  of  a  particular 
part  of  the  state,  as  the  binding  rule  of  action,  may  and  often  does  de- 
feat the  object  of  collecting  the  wisdom  of  the  whole.  It  is  an  inver- 
sion of  the  proper  order  of  legislation,  in  which  wisdom  should  be 
drawn  from  the  collected  views  of  the  whole  state,  and  not  from  the 
partial  views  of  a  portion.* 

*  The  doctrine  of  instructions  seems  to  spring  from  an  opinion,  that  a  delegate 
to  Congress  or  to  any  legislative  body,  is  the  representative  only  of  his  immediate 
constituents.     This  is  a  great  error.     A  delegate  to  Congress,  chosen  in  Maine, 


280  A   LETTER   TO   THE   HONOKABLE   DANIEL   WEBSTER. 

Another  very  commoa  error  is,  to  consider  offices  as  created  for  the 
benefit  of  individuals,  rather  than  for  the  state.  From  this  mistake 
proceeds  the  demand  of  rotation  in  office.  In  this  particular  men  do 
not  make  an  important,  but  just  distinction,  between  legislative  offices 
and  offices  in  the  other  departments  of  government.  Legislators  may- 
be changed  frequently,  without  inconvenience  or  prejudice  to  the  public. 
It  is  not  necessary  nor  expedient  to  change  every  year,  for  experience 
in  legislation  is  highly  useful.  But  a  part  of  the  legislative  body  may 
be  changed  every  year,  often  to  advantage. 

But  to  subject  executive,  ministerial,  and  judicial  offices  to  frequent 
changes,  for  the  sake  of  distributing  the  salaries  and  emoluments  among 
numbers,  is  a  most  injurious  practice.  It  often  displaces  officers  who 
are  dependent  on  the  salaries  or  fees  for  the  support  of  their  families, 
and  who  are  thus  deprived  of  means  of  living,  when  there  is  no  pre- 
tense of  unfaithfulness,  and  when  the  incumbent  is  better  qualified  to 
discharge  the  duties  of  the  office  than  any  other  man. 

But  this  demand  of  rotation  in  executive  offices  is  fruitful  of  evils  to 
the  community.  It  promotes  that  scrambling  for  office,  in  which  all 
the  worst  passions  of  men  are  called  into  action ;  in  which  characters 
are  vilified,  neighborhoods  disturbed,  and  the  harmony  of  society  is 
violated. 

It  is  for  the  peace  of  society,  for  the  interest  of  the  incumbents  in 
office,  and  for  the  good  of  the  community,  that  all  executive  and  judi- 
cial officers  should  hold  their  offices  during  good  behavior.  No  man 
should  be  removed  from  office,  merely  to  make  a  vacancy  for  another 
man.  It  is  a  species  of  injustice  to  faithful  officers,  which  ought  to  be 
reprobated  by  every  good  citizen. 

Much  less  ought  faithful  officers  to  be  removed  on  account  of  their 
political  opinions.  The  practice  of  constraining  men  to  vote  for  a  par- 
ticular candidate,  under  the  penalty  of  losing  his  means  of  subsistence, 
is  one  of  the  ^ickedest  and  meanest  practices  that  ever  disgraced  a 
representative'government.  It  is  intolerance,  as  detestable  in  princi- 
ple as  the  punishment  of  the  rack,  to  compel  men  to  support  a  reli- 
gious establishment.  It  is  to  compel  men  to  violate  their  consciences, 
and  assume  the  garb  of  hypocrites.  It  is  a  practice  that  destroys  the 
independence  of  citizens,  and  actually  makes  them  the  slaves  of  a 

whether  senator  or  representative,  is,  in  the  enactment  of  laws,  as  much  the  rep- 
resentative of  Ohio  or  Georgia  as  he  is  of  Maine.  He  is  supposed  to  bring  into 
the  national  council  a  knowledge  of  the  particular  interests  of  Maine,  for  commu- 
nicating the  proper  information  to  the  council ;  every  delegate  from  the  several 
states  docs  the  same;  but  in  the  determination  of  the  mind  respecting  the  proper 
vote  to  be  given  on  any  proposed  measure,  every  delegate  is  bound  to  take  into 
consideration  the  interests  of  every  state,  and  to  determine  his  vote  by  a  regard  to 
the  general  interest.  If  he  is  governed  solely  by  a  regard  to  the  interests  of  his 
particular  constituents,  or  by  their  instructions,  when  these  are  at  variance  with 
the  general  interest,  he  violates  his  duty  and  the  spirit  of  the  constitution. 

Equally  erroneous  is  tlie  practice  of  -pledges,  by  which  a  man  promises  to  vote 
for  a  particular  measure,  in  order  to  secure  his  election.  This  practice  obliges  a 
man  to  do,  what  he  has  no  right  to  do,  and  what  his  constituents  would  have  no 
right  to  do,  were  they  to  go  to  the  legislature  in  person ;  that  is,  form  a  decision  on 
a  question  of  public  interest,  before  he  enters  the  council,  where  alone  the  decis- 
ion should  be  formed.  It  is  a  practice  that  requires  a  judgment  before  the  trial. 
These  errors  produce  all  manner  of  injustice  and  confusion  in  legislation. 


A   LETTER   TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL    WEBSTER.  281 

party.  And  it  is  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  instances  of  self- 
deception,  which  is  exhibited  in  human  life,  that  men,  professing  to  be 
the  warmest  friends  of  a  republican  government,  and  of  equal  rights, 
should  subject  their  fellow  citizens  to  this  species  of  injustice,  and  tri- 
umph in  the  practice. 

The  doctrine  that  the  spoils  belong  to  the  victors,  originated  in  sav- 
agism.  The  original  state  of  savages  is  a  state  of  war  for  plunder, 
and  the  ancient  barbarians  of  the  north  of  Europe  avowed  the  object 
for  which  they  invaded  more  civilized  nations.  "  Quum  illi-se  in  armis 
jus  ferre,  et  omnia  fortium  virorum  esse,  ferociter  dicerent." — {Livy, 
5,  36.)  The  Gauls  declared  that  they  bore  right  on  the  point  of  their 
swords,  and  that  every  thing  belongs  to  the  brave. 

Now  what  is  the  difference  in  principle  between  the  Gauls  who 
fought  to  rob  their  enemies  of  their  cattle  and  their  lands,  and  a  politi- 
cal party  that  contends  by  all  means,  moral  and  immoral,  for  victory 
in  election,  to  strip  their  opposers,  and  engross  all  the  emoluments  of 
the  government  ?  And  how  can  men  claim  to  be  republicans,  who 
perpetually  struggle  to  deprive  their  opposers  of  the  equal  benefits  of 
government,  and  engross  the  whole  for  themselves  and  their  adherents  ? 
A  practice  of  this  kind  is  a  species  of  tyranny,  which  tarnishes  the 
honor  of  the  state,  corrupts  the  citizens,  and  agitates  the  community 
with  endless  contentions  and  animosity. 

But  other  principles  of  a  still  more  alarming  tendency  begin  to  pre- 
vail. One  is,  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  vested  rights,  but  that 
all  grants  of  a  legislature  may  be  revoked  by  a  subsequent  legislature 
at  pleasure. 

This  principle  seems  to  have  had  its  origin  in  the  opinions  of  Mr. 
Jefferson,  which  are  found  in  his  published  letters. — (See  Vol.  Ill,  pp. 
27,  426,  and  Vol.  IV,  pp.  196,  275,  396.) 

The  general  principle  adopted  by  Mr.  Jefferson  is  that  the  earth  be- 
longs in  usufruct  to  the  living ;  that  the  dead  have  neither  power  nor 
rights  over  it ;  that  no  man  can  by  natural  right  oblige  the  lands  he  oc- 
cupied, or  the  persons  who  succeeded  him  in  that  ocupation,  to  the  pay- 
ment of  debts  contracted  by  him,  for  if  he  could,  he  might,  during  his 
own  life,  eat  up  the  usufruct  of  the  lands  for  several  generations  to  come, 
and  then  the  lands  would  belong  to  the  dead,  and  not  to  the  living ;  that 
what  is  true  of  every  member  of  the  society  individually,  is  true  of  them 
all  collectively  ;  since  the  rights  of  the  whole  can  be  no  more  than  the 
sum  of  the  rights  of  the  individuals  ;  that  each  generation  may  be  con- 
sidered as  a  distinct  nation,  with  a  right,  by  the  will  of  its  majority,  to 
bind  themselves,  but  none  to  bind  the  succeeding  generation  ;  that  the 
period  of  a  generation  is  thirty  four  years  ;  that  a  majority  of  a  genera- 
tion therefore  will  be  dead  at  the  end  of  eighteen  years  and  eight  months ; 
and  that  at  nineteen  years  from  the  date  of  a  contract,  the  majority  of 
contractors  (the  generation)  are  dead  and  their  contract  with  them. 
Mr.  Jefferson  then  supposes  a  case  in  which  a  majority  of  a  generation 
borrow  a  sum  of  money  equal  to  the  fee  simple  value  of  a  state,  and 
consume  it  in  eating,  drinking  or  quarreling  and  fighting.  From  this  he 
infers,  that  in  nineteen  years,  when  the  majority  are  dead,  there  is  an 
end  of  the  debt. 

36        IT'  Mprr-  ■      ~       "    -. 


282  A   LETTER   TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL   WEBSTER. 

This  theory  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  a  consideration  of  the 
evil  of  an  enormous  national  debt,  like  that  of  Great  Britain ;  and  the 
alarm  which  the  writer  felt,  lest  the  United  States  should  be  involved  in 
a  like  calamity.  At  any  rate,  it  is  the  most  extraordinary  instance  of 
false  premises  and  fallacious  reasoning  that  ever  entered  the  head  of  an 
enthusiast. 

What  is  a  generation  ?  A  multitude  of  individuals,  old  and  young, 
unconnected  by  any  legal  or  political  tie  which  can  constitute  them  a 
person  in  law,  or  a  corporation,  and  of  course  incapable  of  contracting 
debts  or  expending  money,  as  a  body ;  in  short,  incapable  of  doing  any 
act  as  a  body.     A  generation  can  neither  make  a  law  nor  repeal  it. 

And  what  sort  of  social  right  is  that  which  an  individual  has  to  pur- 
chase or  sell  lands  and  contract  debts,  when  the  mere  fact  of  the  death 
of  the  majority  of  the  society,  an  event  over  which  he  can  have  no  con- 
trol, dissolves  the  contract,  and  expunges  the  debt .''  And  how  is  the 
fact,  at  any  time,  to  be  ascertained,  that  a  majority  are  dead  ?  A  man 
who  can  seriously  reason  in  this  manner  is  worthy  of  a  straight  jacket. 

But  the  case  of  a  state  or  its  legislature  stands  on  different  principles. 
A  state  is  a  perpetual  corporation  ;  all  the  members  of  it  are  united  by 
consent  or  compact  in  one  body,  constituting  a  person  in  law,  capable 
of  enacting  laws,  and  repealing  them,  and  of  contracting  and  paying 
debts.  This  corporation  never  dies ;  and  the  powers  it  had  the  last 
year,  or  twenty  or  a  hundred  years  ago,  are  the  same  powers  which  it 
possesses  this  year.  The  act  of  the  state,  fifty  years  ago,  is  the  act  of 
the  state  this  year ;  and  a  contract  made  fifty  years  ago,  binding  the 
state  then,  continues  to  bind  the  same  state  noio.  A  change  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  corporation  makes  no  change  in  the  being  or  powers  of  the 
body. 

These  principles,  known  and  established  by  every  government  on 
earth,  show  in  what  cases  one  legislature  can  repeal  or  amend  the  act 
of  a  former  legislature. 

The  legislature  is  the  acting  state ;  it  is  the  only  form  of  the  state  in 
which  it  can  act  at  all.  A  convention  is  a  legislature  elected  for  a  par- 
ticular purpose  ;  and  for  that  purpose,  the  framing  of  a  constitution,  or- 
ganizing the  several  departments  of  the  government,  it  may  be  conven- 
ient to  consider  it  as  a  body  having  powers  superior  to  those  of  an  ordi- 
nary legislature,  and  particularly  when  the  constitution  is  ratified  by 
the  whole  body  of  the  citizens,  acting  as  individuals. 

But  in  ordinary  cases  of  legislation,  the  legislature  is  the  supreme 
power  of  the  state  in  the  only  form  in  which  it  can  act,  as  a  state. 

This  body  then  has  always  the  same  powers,  and  the  legislature  of 
this  year  may  repeal  a  law  enacted  the  last  year.  The  reason  is,  that 
a  law  is  the  will  of  the  state,  acting  on  itself  or  on  its  own  members,  and 
the  body  that  repeals  a  law  is  the  same  body  that  enacted  it. 

But  in  the  ceise  of  charters  granted  or  debts  contracted,  there  are  two 
parties,  the  state  and  the  individuals  to  whom  a  grant  or  a  promise  is 
made  ;  there  are  two  wills  concerned,  both  of  which  are  essential  to  the 
act.  In  this  case  one  party  has  no  better  right  to  annul  a  grant  or  vio- 
late a  promise,  than  one  private  person  has  to  annul  a  covenant  which 
he  has  made  with  another.  Nor  does  it  make  any  difference,  whether 
the  state  acts  by  an  ordinary  legislature  or  by  a  convention,  for,  in  both 


A    LETTER   TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL   WEBSTER.  283 

cases,  the  state  is  the  same  party.  A  change  of  representation  no  more 
alters  the  identity  of  the  party  to  a  contract,  than  a  man  changing  his 
coat  makes  him  another  man. 

It  is  not  unusual  for  a  state,  in  granting  charters,  to  reserve  the  right 
of  repealing  the  act — a  reservation  which  shows  that  legislatures  have 
always  considered  a  grant  without  such  reservation  as  not  repealable. 
Indeed  all  the  principles  of  justice  and  right,  in  regard  to  the  contracts 
of  individuals  with  each  other,  are  applicable  to  grants  and  contracts  of 
states. 

The  citizen  or  citizens  who  accept  a  charter,  with  a  clause  of  reser- 
vation as  above  stated,  accept  the  grant  on  the  condition  specified,  and 
no  injury  is  done  by  the  legislature  in  taking  back  the  grant. 

The  doctrine  that  there  can  be  no  vested  rights  subverts  the  founda- 
tion of  society ;  and  a  country,  adopting  and  acting  on  that  doctrine, 
would  soon  be  depopulated,  or  compelled  to  submit  to  be  governed  by 
a  military  force. 

Many  of  our  public  evils  have  evidently  proceeded  from  false  opin- 
ions, propagated  by  some  of  the  founders  of  our  government.  Their 
ideas  of  a  free  government  were  not  always  correct.  Mr.  Jefferson, 
and  many  other  distinguished  men,  believed,  that  men  can  govern  them- 
selves without  a  master ;  meaning,  probably,  without  a  king.  True, 
but  they  can  not  govern  themselves  without  a  controlling  power,  a  force 
of  some  kind  or  other  that  shall  be  sufficient  to  keep  them  in  subjection. 
If  the  citizens  of  a  state  will  voluntarily  create  such  a  power,  they  can 
be  governed  ;  if  they  will  not,  they  can  not  be  governed  ;  that  is,  there 
can  be  no  regular  administration  of  just  laws  without  a  coercive  power. 
If  men  will  not  have  a  king,  they  must  have  laws  and  magistrates, 
armed  with  power  to  bring  them  all  into  obedience.  If  this  is  not  the 
fact,  there  is  no  free  government. 

We  hear  it  constantly  proclaimed,  that  men  may  be  governed  by 
reason.  Why  then  have  they  never  before  been  governed  by  reason  ? 
Why  do  not  men  govern  their  social  actions  without  law  ?  Why  do  not 
parties  in  controversy  settle  their  private  disputes  by  the  dictates  of 
their  reeison .''  Why  are  courts,  consisting  of  men  uninterested  in  the 
controversies  of  individuals,  established  to  decide  upon  questions  of 
private  rights  ?  If  men  are  capable  of  governing  themselves  by  rea- 
son, why  have  all  democratic  and  republican  governments  come  to  ruin  ? 
Why  have  they  not  been  permanent  ? 

Corruption,  it  will  be  said,  has  ruined  them.  True ;  and  this  is  con- 
ceding the  whole  question.  It  is  the  depravity  of  man  which  has  ruined 
all  former  free  governments,  and  which  will  ruin  ours. 

We  have  already  had  terrible  examples  of  the  manner  in  which  men 
govern  themselves  without  a  master,  that  is,  not  only  without  a  king, 
but  without  a  competent  force  of  law.  And  it  is  not  a  little  singular, 
that  when  the  citizens  of  Baltimore  had  suffered  immensely  by  popular 
violence,  they  had  no  remedy  except  to  organize  a  military  force  of 
volunteers  for  their  protection.  What  is  more  worthy  of  notice,  they 
gave  the  command  to  one  who  had,  all  his  life,  been  devoted  to  demo- 
cratic principles,  and  who  thus  became  the  master  of  the  people,  who 
were  supposed  to  be  able  to  govern  themselves  without  a  master. 


284  A   LETTER   TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

The  truth  is,  many  of  our  leading  political  men,  during  and  after  the 
Revolution,  were  visionary  enthusiasts,  who  had  read  history  without 
profit,  or  due  application  of  historical  facts.  Their  ideas  were  crude, 
and  utterly  at  variance  with  the  truth  of  history,  and  with  all  experience. 
They  seem  to  have  supposed,  that  to  obtain  liberty,  and  establish  a  free 
government,  nothing  was  necessary  but  to  get  rid  of  kings,  nobles,  and 
priests  ;  never  considering  that  the  same  principles  of  human  nature, 
and  the  same  disposition  to  tyrannize,  exist  in  all  other  men,  and  that 
the  people,  when  they  have  the  power,  will  abuse  it,  and  be  as  tyran- 
nical as  kings.  This  mistake  has  led  to  deplorable  consequences ;  one 
of  which  is,  that  people  mistake  the  nature  of  tyranny  or  oppression, 
supposing  that  the  sovereign  people  may  do  that  which  a  king  can  not 
do  without  oppression.  One  judge  has  publicly  declared,  that  if  a  small 
number  of  persons  are  guilty  of  violating  law,  they  may  be  indicted ; 
but  if  a  great  multitude  outrage  law  and  rights,  they  can  not  be  indicted 
or  punished.  It  is  painful  to  the  friends  of  a  republic  that  such  a  mon- 
strous doctrine  should  be  uttered  by  any  man  whose  duty  is  to  carry 
laws  into  effect. 

We  continually  hear  eulogies  on  the  happy  condition  of  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  ;  resulting  from  the  freedom  of  our  government. 
These  eulogies,  to  a  certain  extent,  are  well  founded.  Our  active, 
industrious,  and  enterprising  citizens,  possessing  a  vast  extent  of  fertile 
land,  growing  and  profitable  manufactures,  and  a  commerce  that  reaches 
every  spot  on  the  globe,  enjoy  blessings  beyond  those  of  any  other 
country.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are  subjected  to  injustice  and  tyr- 
anny in  a  thousand  ways.  For  thirty  years  past,  party  spirit  has  pro- 
duced a  constant  series  of  oppression ;  the  triumphant  party  using  its 
power  to  deprive  the  defeated  party  of  its  rights.  The  proscriptions 
inflicted  on  men  in  office  for  holding  political  principles  diflierent  from 
the  dominant  party,  are  among  the  most  detestable  acts  of  tyranny. 

The  infringements  of  the  most  solemn  treaties,  the  palpable  viola- 
tions of  the  constitution,  and  the  usurpation  of  unconstitutional  powers 
by  the  executive,  exhibit  most  woful  departures  from  the  genuine  prin- 
ciples of  a  free  government.  And  it  may  be  questioned,  whether  any 
kingdom  in  the  civilized  part  of  Europe  has  suffered  so  many  violations 
of  public  and  private  rights,  as  the  people  of  the  United  States  have 
suffered  within  thirty  years,  without  an  attempt  to  punish  their  op- 
pressors. 

And  now  we  read,  in  our  public  prints,  repeated  complaints  of  mis- 
rule, and  outbreakings  of  popular  violence  ;  and  the  writers  seem  to  be 
surprised  at  such  events.  They  do  not  consider,  that  these  outrages 
are  the  natural,  not  to  say  necessary,^  consequences  of  the  doctrines 
which  they  themselves,  in  many  cases,  have  been  preaching  or  eulogi- 
zing ever  since  the  constitution  was  formed.  Such  men  are  beginning 
to  learn  that  men  must  have  something  to  govern  them  besides  reason. 

Most  persons  seem  to  think  that  the  election  of  a  good  president  will 
remedy  all  our  evils.  This  is  a  vain  hope  ;  a  temporary  alleviation  is 
all  that  is  to  be  expected  from  the  best  chief  magistrate  that  the  United 
States  can  find.  There  are  defects  in  our  form  of  government,  and 
errors  in  popular  opinions,  that  no  administration  can  rectify  ;  and  until 
such  defects  are  amended,  and  such  errors  corrected,  we  shall  continue 


A    LETTER    TO    THE    HONORABLE    DANIEL    WEBSTER.  285 

to  be  a  divided,  distracted  community ;  incessantly  agitated  by  violent 
factions  ;  each  in  its  turn  triumphing  and  oppressing  the  other. 

One  thing  is  certain,  that  the  election  of  the  chief  magistrate  must  be 
conducted  in  some  Vk'ay  that  shall  effectually  prevent  intriguing  for  the 
office.  If  this  can  not  be  effected,  the  constitution,  for  securing  a  just 
administration  and  equal  rights,  is  not  worth  a  straw. 

Another  thing  is  equally  certain,  that  unless  executive  and  judicial 
officers  can  be  placed  beyond  the  influence  of  popular  caprice,  many  of 
them  at  least  will  be  time-servers,  the  laws  will  be  feebly  executed,  and 
impartiality  will  be  banished  from  our  tribunals  of  justice. 

Must  we,  then,  despair  of  the  republic  .''  No,  sir,  not  yet.  The  peo- 
ple of  this  country  are  republican  in  principle  ;  and  will  not  abandon 
the  hope  that  a  republican  government  may  be  sustained.  But,  sir,  that 
hope  must  be  abandoned,  unless  the  great  men  of  our  country  will  lay 
aside  their  party  strife,  and  unite  in  some  vigorous  effort  to  amend  the 
defects  of  our  constitution.  The  leading  men,  sir,  must  cease  to  expend 
their  breath  in  speeches  about  banks  and  monopolies  and  metallic  cur- 
rency, and  mount  up  to  the  source  of  our  public  evils.  There  only 
can  be  applied  the  catholicon  which  shall  be  efficacious  in  restoring  to 
the  confederacy  health  and  soundness.  Marcellus. 


% 


w 


286  '      •    ^^< 


CHAPTER   XII. 

ANSWER    TO   His    Exc.   JOHN   BROOKS,    GOVERNOR   OF 
THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MASSACHUSETTS. 

(from    the    COLUMBIAN    CENfTINEL    OF    JUNE    5,    1819.) 

Mk.  Webster,  of  Amherst,  of  the  committee  on  the  subject,  reported 
the  following  Answer  to  the  Governor's  Speech ;  which  was  unani- 
mously accepted,  and  the  committee  directed  to  present  it. 

May  it  please  your  Excellency, — 

In  meeting  your  Excellency,  on  your  re-election  to  the  office  of  chief 
magistrate  of  the  commonwealth,  and  uniting  with  the  other  branches 
of  the  government,  in  deliberations  on  the  means  of  promoting  the 
public  prosperity,  the  house  of  representatives  most  sincerely  concur 
with  your  Excellency,  in  acknowledging  the  goodness  of  that  Almighty 
Being,  from  whom  are  primarily  derived  all  the  blessings  of  peace, 
plenty,  general  health,  good  order  and  freedom.  And  it  is  with  great 
satisfaction  that  we  see  a  gentleman,  whose  patriotism  and  valor,  in 
early  life,  contributed  to  defend  the  rights  and  establish  the  independ- 
ence of  his  country,  called  by  his  fellow  citizens,  to  preside  over  the 
administration  of  the  laws  in  this  commonwealth ;  and  by  the  influence 
of  venerable  years  and  mature  experience,  recommending  the  cultiva- 
tion of  those  virtues,  and  the  encouragement  of  those  institutions,  which 
are  adapted  to  give  stability  to  republican  government — to  secure  the 
rights,  and  elevate  the  character  of  freemen.  Duly  appreciating  the 
importance  of  the  privileges  which  the  people  of  this  commonwealth 
enjoy,  under  the  constitution  of  the  state,  and  of  the  United  States,  we 
can  not  be  insensible  to  the  high  responsibility  resting  on  us,  to  exert 
our  best  endeavors  to  guard  the  interests  of  the  state,  and  to  advance 
the  prosperity  of  its  citizens. 

We  rejoice  that  the  people  of  this  commonwealth  have  had  the  op- 
portunity to  form,  and  have  now  the  happiness  to  enjoy,  a  republican 
constitution  of  government.  We  rejoice  that  man,  doomed  in  former 
ages  and  in  other  countries,  to  be  the  victim  of  conquest  and  vassalage, 
has,  in  this  part  of  the  globe,  resumed  his  natural  rights,  and  vindicated 
"ills  claim  to  govern  himself.  We  admire  the  fortitude,  the  patience, 
and  the  sufferings  of  our  venerable  ancestors,  who  selected,  settled, 
and  defended  this  sequestered  continent,  as  a  secure  retreat  from  the 
evils  of  the  European  world,  no  less  than  we  reverence  the  intelligence,  ' 
the  virtue,  and  the  piety  from  which  we  have  derived  institutions  and 
systems  of  laws,  probably  more  nearly  perfect  than  any  which  have 
before  fallen  to  the  lot  of  man.  But  we  perfectly  accord  in  sentiment 
with  your  Excellency,  that  without  intelligence  and  virtue  in  the  peo- 
ple, from  whom  springs  all  legitimate  government,  there  can  be  no 
rational  expectation  that  these  invaluable  privileges  can  be  long  pre- 


ANSWER  TO  GOVERNOR  BROOKS.  287 

served ;  and  we  feel  that  we  should  betray  the  trust  reposed  in  us  by 
our  constituents,  if  we  should  neglect  to  cherish  the  principles,  guard 
the  rights,  and  improve  the  institutions,  civil,  religious,  and  literary, 
which  we  inherit  from  our  ancestors  and  from  the  founders  of  our 
constitution. 

In  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  your  Excellency,  the  house  of 
representatives  number  the  early  instruction  and  discipline  of  youth, 
among  the  most  efficacious  means  of  promoting  the  happiness  and  im- 
proving the  condition  of  society.  Habits  of  early  subordination,  just 
views  of  moral  obligation,  and  reverence  of  the  Supreme  Being,  have, 
in  our  apprehension,  the  most  powerful  tendency  to  restrain  the  pro- 
gress of  vice,  and  extend  the  dominion  of  virtue.  It  is  obvious  from 
experience,  no  less  than  from  the  declaration  of  inspired  truth,  that 
the  training  of  children  in  the  path  of  integrity  and  virtue,  is  the  best 
method  to  secure  their  future  rectitude  of  conduct,  their  reputation, 
their  influence,  and  their  usefulness.  We  hold  it  to  be  a  truth  that 
ought  to  be  impressed  on  the  heart  of  every  parent  and  guardian,  and 
too  important  not  to  be  repeated  on  every  suitable  occasion,  that  the 
rudiments  of  the  public  character  of  a  nation  or  people,  are  unfolded 
in  families  and  seminaries  of  learning.  Families,  the  elementary  asso- 
ciations of  man,  which  spring  from  the  divine  institution  of  marriage, 
constitute  the  germs  of  all  human  society ;  and  from  the  instructions 
and  discipline  of  families  and  primary  schools,  the  minds  of  youth 
receive  a  direction,  which,  in  a  great  degree,  gives  to  them  their  future 
character  as  members  of  a  community. 

Under  these  impressions,  the  house  of  representatives  hold  it  to  be 
their  indispensable  duty,  as  it  is  their  highest  interest,  to  encourage 
every  practicable  measure  that  may  be  suggested  or  devised,  to  carry 
into  effect  the  requisitions  of  the  constitution  respecting  the  education 
of  youth.  To  form  plans  for  diffusing  literary  and  moral  improvement 
among  the  indigent  classes  of  citizens,  in  connection  with  religious 
instruction,  will  be  no  less  our  pleasure,  than  it  is  a  duty  which  we 
owe  to  society.  To  draw  from  the  obscure  retreats  of  poverty,  the 
miserable  victims  of  ignorance  and  vice  ;  to  enlighten  their  minds ;  to 
extirpate  corrupt  principles  ;  to  reform  their  evil  habits  ;  and  to  raise 
them  from  debasement  to  the  rank  of  intelligent,  industrious,  and  useful 
members  of  the  community,  will  never  cease  to  be  an  object  of  deep 
solicitude  with  a  wise  legislature  ;  and  we  trust  that  no  opportunity  will 
be  neglected  by  the  house  of  representatives,  to  lend  their  influence  to 
any  measure  calculated  to  promote  this  object. 

The  increase  of  pauperism  is  an  evil  to  be  deeply  regretted.  In 
this  commonwealth,  where  property  is  diffused  among  all  classes  of 
people,  and  the  means  of  subsistence  are  not  difficult  to  be  obtained, 
this  evil  is  probably  less  alarming  than  in  Europe.  Yet  in  this  state, 
the  evil  is  too  obvious  not  to  be  perceived,  and  to  awaken  apprehen- 
sions ;  and  the  view  which  your  Excellency  has  presented  to  us,  of  the 
pauperism  of  some  European  countries,  in  connection  with  ignorance 
and  crimes,  can  not  fail  to  impress  on  our  minds  the  importance  of 
attending  to  every  scheme  that  human  wisdom  can  devise,  to  arrest  its 
progress  in  this  commonwealth.  In  regard  to  the  most  efficacious 
mode  of  preventing  crimes,  by  early  instruction  and  discipline,  forming 


888  ANSWER   TO    GOVERNOR   BROOKS. 

the  minds  of  youth  to  habits  of  moral  order  and  industry,  we  entirely 
coincide  with  your  Excellency ;  and  we  shall  not  fail  to  improve  every 
suggestion  that  may  be  offered,  and  promote  every  salutary  measure 
that  may  be  devised,  to  prevent  an  accumulation  of  the  evils  which 
spring  from  ignorance,  indolence  and  vice. 

The  house  of  representatives  are  highly  gratified  to  learn  from  your 
Excellency,  that  the  great  penitentiary  at  Charlestown  and  the  hospital 
for  the  insane,  are  in  a  prosperous  condition  ;  and  that  both  institutions 
justify  the  expectation,  that  they  will  prove  extensively  beneficial  to 
the  community.  And  while  we  would  express  our  full  confidence  in 
the  judicious  arrangements  and  economical  management  of  those  to 
whom  these  institutions  are  intrusted,  we  would  manifest  a  readiness 
to  give  to  them  any  aid  which  the  demands  of  justice  and  humanity 
may  require,  and  which  may  not  be  incompatible  with  the  resources  of 
the  commonwealth. 

Note,  1843. — The  opinion,  that  intelligence  and  virtue  are  the  sup- 
port of  a  republic,  seems  to  have  acquired  among  us  the  authority  of 
an  axiom.  It  was  borrowed,  at  least  in  part,  from  the  writings  of  Mon- 
tesquieu on  the  Roman  republic.  In  common  with  my  fellow  citizens, 
I  may  have  often  repeated  the  opinion,  supposing  it  to  be  true  as  an 
abstract  proposition,  but  without  examining  the  ground  on  which  alone 
it  can  be  maintained  as  a  practical  truth. 

In  order  to  support  a  popular  government  by  moral  influence,  the 
citizens  of  a  state  must  have  a  degree  of  intelligence  which  will  enable 
them,  under  all  circumstances,  to  understand  the  true  interest  of  the 
state,  and  the  proper  measures  to  sustain  it ;  and  this  degree  of  intelli- 
gence must  be  supported  by  a  high  degree  of  moral  principle,  which 
shall,  under  all  circumstances,  be  sufficient  to  control  the  selfishness 
of  the  citizens,  and  induce  them  to  unite  in  measures  to  promote  the 
public  good,  even  when  adverse  to  private  interest.  Nothing  short  of 
such  intelligence  and  virtue,  always  active  and  of  sufficient  energy  to 
combine  the  operations  of  the  citizens,  could  effect  the  object. 

Now  a  community  or  state,  in  which  the  citizens  possess  these  re- 
quisites, can  not  be  supposed  to  exist  on  earth,  without  a  preternatural 
change  in  the  character  of  the  human  race.  No  such  community  has 
ever  existed ;  and  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  such  a  community 
will  ever  exist. 

Human  learning,  whatever  advantages  it  may  confer  on  individuals 
and  a  state,  never  corrects  the  dispositions  and  passions  of  the  human 
mind,  from  which  proceed  the  disorders  and  corruptions  of  government. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  may  increase  the  evil  by  enlarging  the  power, 
multiplying  the  motives,  and  augmenting  the  means  of  doing  mischief. 
Men  are  not  governed  by  knowledge,  but  by  their  passions,  their  habits, 
their  prejudices,  and  especially  by  their  interests.  Knowledge  and 
reason  are  useful  to  selfish  men,  when  they  coincide  with  interest ;  but 
when  they  are  at  variance  with  it,  their  influence  is  rejected,  or  they 
are,  or  may  be,  perverted  and  employed  to  justify  measures  dictated 
by  interest,  whatever  may  be  the  moral  character  of  such  measures. 

The  abstract  opinion  therefore,  that  intelligence  and  virtue  are  the 
support  of  a  republic,  is  adapted  to  deceive  us  with  fallacious  hopes. 


289  '^*^v>'«ew  .'iSi 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

A   LETTER    TO    THE   REV.    SAMUEL    LEE,    PROFESSOR 
OF   ARABIC   IN   THE   UNIVERSITY   OF   CAMBRIDGE. 

Cambridge,  Dec.  20th,  1824. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir — As  I  have  crossed  the  Atlantic  for  the  purpose 
of  completing  and  publishing  a  dictionary  of  our  language,  it  would  be 
very  gratifying  to  me  and  to  my  countrymen,  and  I  think  by  no  means 
useless  in  England,  to  settle,  by  the  united  opinions  of  learned  men, 
some  points  in  pronunciation,  orthography,  and  construction,  in  which 
the  practice  of  good  writers  and  speakers  is  not  uniform,  either  in  Eng- 
land or  the  United  States.  The  English  language  is  the  language  of 
the  United  States ;  and  it  is  desirable  that  as  far  as  the  people  have  the 
same  things  and  the  same  ideas,  the  words  to  express  them  should  re- 
main the  same.  The  diversities  of  language  among  men  may  be  con- 
sidered as  a  curse,  and  certainly  one  of  the  greatest  evils  that  com- 
merce, religion,  and  the  social  interests  of  men  have  to  encounter. 

The  English  language  will  prevail  over  the  whole  of  North  America, 
from  the  latitude  of  25°  or  30°  north,  to  the  utmost  limit  of  population 
toward  the  north  pole  ;  and,  according  to  the  regular  laws  of  popula- 
tion, it  must,  within  two  centuries,  be  spoken  by  three  hundred  millions 
of  people  on  that  continent.  If  we  take  into  view  the  English  popu- 
lation in  New  Holland,  and  other  lands  in  the  south  and  east,  we  may 
fairly  suppose  that  in  two  centuries  the  English  will  be  the  language  of 
one  third  or  two  fifths  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  globe. 

Besides  this,  the  English  language  is  to  be  the  instrument  of  propa- 
gating sciences,  arts,  and  the  Christian  religion,  to  an  extent  probably 
exceeding  that  of  any  other  language.  It  is  therefore  important  that 
its  principles  should  be  adjusted,  and  uniformity  of  spelling  and  pro- 
nunciation established  and  preserved,  as  far  as  the  nature  of  a  living 
language  will  admit.  In  regard  to  the  great  body  of  the  language,  its 
principles  are  now  settled  by  usage,  and  are  uniform  in  this  country 
and  in  the  United  States.  But  there  are  many  points  in  which  respec- 
table men  are  not  agreed,  and  it  is  the  sincere  desire  of  my  fellow 
citizens  that  such  a  diversity  may  no  longer  exist.  If  a  delegation  of 
gentlemen  from  the  two  ujjiversities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  could 
be  induced  to  meet  and  consult  on  this  subject,  either  in  Oxford,  or 
Cambridge,  or  in  London,  I  would  meet  them  with  pleasure,  and  lay 
before  them  such  points  of  difference  in  the  practice  of  the  two  coun- 
tries, as  it  is  desirable  to  adjust,  and  the  gentlemen  would  consider  any 
other  points  that  they  might  think  it  expedient  to  determine.  1  would 
also  lay  before  them  some  thoughts  on  a  plan  for  correcting  the  evils 
of  our  irregular  orthography,  without  the  use  of  any  new  letters. 

I  know  that  the  decisions  of  such  a  collection  of  unauthorized  indi- 
viduals would  not  be  considered  as  binding  on  the  community,  and  it 
might  be  thought  assuming.     But  the  gentlemen  would  disavow  any 

37 


LETTER   TO    THE    REV.    SAMUEL   LEE. 

intention  of  imposing  their  opinions  on  the  public  as  authoritative — they 
would  offer  simply  their  opinions,  and  the  public  would  still  be  at  lib- 
erty to  receive  or  reject  them.  But  whatever  cavils  might  be  made  at 
first,  those  who  know  the  influence  of  men  of  distinguished  erudition 
on  public  opinion,  in  cases  of  a  literary  nature,  will  have  no  question 
respecting  the  ultimate  success  of  such  a  project.  That  my  country- 
men would  generally  receive  the  decisions  and  follow  them,  I  have  no 
doubt. 

I  sincerely  wish,  sir,  that  this  proposition  may  be  transmitted  to  some 
gentleman  of  your  acquaintance  in  Oxford,  and  that  you  would  con- 
verse with  the  masters  and  professors  of  this  university  on  the  subject. 
I  am,  sir,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

N.  Webster. 

Rev.  Samuel  Lee,  D.  D. 

A  copy  of  this  letter  was  sent  to  Oxford,  but  no  answer  was  returned. 


. ..'    is^xiaUtA  ^ 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

REPLY  TO  A  LETTER  OF  DAVID  McCLURE,  ESQ,.,  ON 
THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  PROPER  COURSE  OF  STUDY 
IN   THE    GIRARD   COLLEGE,   PHILADELPHIA. 

New  Haven,  Oct.  25,  1836. 

Dear  Sir — I  have  received  and  perused  the  system  of  education  for 
the  Girard  College  for  Orphans,  which  you  have  been  so  good  as  to 
send  me,  and  for  which  please  to  accept  my  thanks. 

In  regard  to  the  merits  of  the  system,  on  which  you  request  my  opin- 
ions, I  will  make  a  few  remarks,  although  I  do  not  think  myself  so  well 
qualified  to  judge  of  it  as  many  gentlemen  who  have  been  in  the  em- 
ployment of  instruction  in  our  higher  seminaries. 

The  mode  you  propose  for  instructing  children  in  the  French  and 
Spanish  languages,  is  nearly  the  same  as  I  have  always  supposed  to  be 
the  best,  if  not  the  only  mode  of  making  pupils  perfectly  masters  of  a 
foreign  language.  An  accurate  pronunciation  and  familiarity  with  a 
language  can  not  easily  be  acquired,  except  in  youth,  when  the  organs 
of  speech  are  pliable,  and  by  practice,  as  we  learn  our  vernacular  lan- 
guage. 

In  regard  to  your  system  in  general,  I  can  only  say,  that  it  appears 
to  be  judiciously  constructed,  and  well  adapted  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing thorough  scholars.  If  on  trial  it  should  be  found  susceptible  of  im- 
provement, experience  will  direct  to  the  proper  amendments.  One 
remark,  however,  I  take  the  liberty  to  make.  I  do  not  suppose  an  ex- 
act conformity  to  a  particular  course  of  studies  to  be  essential  to  a 
thorough  education.  One  course  may  be  preferable  to  another,  but 
there  seems  to  be  "  no  royal  way  to  geometry ;"  close  and  persevering 
application  only  will  make  good  scholars,  and  this  will  accomplish  the 
object,  without  an  adherence  to  any  precise  order  of  studies. 

As  by  Mr.  Girard's  will,  there  can  not  be  in  the  college  any  instruc- 
tion in  the  Christian  religion,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  to  make  a  few  re- 
marks on  that  subject.* 

In  my  view,  the  Christian  religion  is  the  most  important  and  one  of 
the  first  things  in  which  all  children,  under  a  free  government,  ought 
to  be  instructed.  In  this  institution  it  is  of  more  importance,  as  the 
pupils  will  be  orphans,  and  may  be  destitute  of  parental  instruction. 

No  truth  is  more  evident  to  my  mind,  than  that  the  Christian  religion 
must  be  the  basis  of  any  government  intended  to  secure  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  a  free  people.  The  opinion  that  human  reason^  left  with- 
out the  constant  control  of  divine  laws  and  commands,  will  preserve  a 

*  The  clause  in  Mr.  Girard's  will  is  in  the  following  words  :  "  I  enjoin  and  re- 
quire that  no  ecclesiastic,  missionary,  or  minister,  of  any  sect  whatever,  shall  ever 
hold  or  exercise  any  station  or  duty  whatever  in  the  said  College  ;  nor  shall  any 
such  person  be  admitted  for  any  purpose,  or  as  a  visitor,  within  the  premises  ap- 
propriated to  the  purposes  of  said  College." 


292        REPLY  TO  A  LETTER  OF  DAVID  MC  CLURE,  ESQ. 

just  administration,  secure  freedom,  and  other  rights,  restrain  men  from 
violations  of  laws  and  constitutions,  and  give  duration  to  a  popular  gov- 
ernment, is  as  chimerical  as  the  most  extravagant  ideas  that  enter  the 
head  of  a  maniac.  The  history  of  the  whole  world  refutes  the  opin- 
ion ;  the  Bible  refutes  it ;  our  own  melancholy  experience  refutes  it. 

When  I  speak  of  the  Christian  religion  as  the  basis  of  government, 
I  do  not  mean  an  ecclesiastical  establishment,  a  creed,  or  rites,  forms, 
and  ceremonies,  or  any  compulsion  of  conscience.  I  mean  primitive 
Christianity,  in  its  simplicity,  as  taught  by  Christ  and  his  apostles ;  con- 
sisting in  a  belief  in  the  being,  perfections,  and  moral  government  of 
God ;  in  the  revelation  of  his  will  to  men,  as  their  supreme  rule  of 
action ;  in  man's  accountability  to  God  for  his  conduct  in  this  life  ;  and 
in  the  indispensable  obligation  of  all  men  to  yield  entire  obedience  to 
God's  commands  in  the  moral  law  and  in  the  Gospel.  This  belief  and 
this  practice  may  consist  with  different  forms  of  church  government, 
which,  not  being  essential  to  Christianity,  need  not  enter  into  any  sys- 
tem of  education. 

Where  will  you  find  any  code  of  laws,  among  civilized  men,  in  which 
the  commands  and  prohibitions  are  not  founded  on  Christian  principles.? 
I  need  not  specify  the  prohibition  of  murder,  robbery,  theft,  trespass  ; 
but  commercial  and  social  regulations  are  all  derived  from  those  prin- 
ciples, or  intended  to  enforce  them.  The  laws  of  contracts  and  bills 
of  exchange  are  founded  on  the  principles  of  justice,  the  basis  of  all 
security  of  rights  in  society.  The  laws  of  insurance  are  founded  on 
the  Christian  principle  of  benevolence,  and  intended  to  protect  men 
from  want  and  distress.  The  provisions  of  law  for  the  relief  of  the 
poor  are  in  pursuance  of  Christian  principles.  Every  wise  code  of 
laws  must  embrace  the  main  principles  of  the  religion  of  Christ. 

Now  the  most  efficient  support  of  human  laws  is,  the  full  belief  that 
the  subjects  of  such  laws  are  accountable  to  higher  authority  than  hu- 
man tribunals.  The  halter  and  the  penitentiary  may  restrain  many 
men  from  overt  criminal  acts  ;  but  it  is  the  fear  of  God  and  a  reverence 
for  his  authority  and  commands,  which  alone  can  control  and  subdue 
the  will,  when  tempted  by  ambition  and  interest  to  violate  the  laws. 
Whatever  superficial  observers  may  think,  it  is  beyond  a  question,  that 
the  small  band  of  real  Christians  in  Protestant  countries  has  more  in- 
fluence in  securing  order  and  peace  in  society  than  all  the  civil  officers 
of  government.  Just  in  proportion  as  the  influence  of  such  men  is 
impaired,  is  the  increase  of  crimes  and  outrages  upon  the  rights  of  in- 
dividuals and  upon  the  public  peace. 

It  has  been  a  misfortune  to  the  citizens  of  this  country,  that,  from 
their  abhorrence  of  the  ecclesiastical  tyranny  of  certain  orders  of  the 
clergy  in  Europe,  they  have  contracted  strong  prejudices  against  the 
clergy  m  this  country,  who  have  neither  rank  nor  temporal  power,  and 
whose  influence  is  derived  solely  from  their  personal  attainments  and 
worth,  and  their  official  services. 

The  clergy  in  this  country  are  generally  men  of  learning  and  of  good 
principles.  They  have  been  uniformly  and  preeminently  the  friends  of 
education  and  civil  liberty.  The  learned  clergy  among  the  first  settlers 
of  New  England  had  great  influence  in  founding  the  first  genuine  re- 
publican governments  ever  formed,  and  which,  with  all  the  faults  and 


REPLY  TO  A  LETTER   OF   DAVID  MC  CLX7RE,   ESQ.  293 

defects  of  the  men  and  their  laws,  were  the  hest  republican  govern- 
ments on  earth.  At  this  moment  the  people  of  this  country  are  in- 
debted chiefly  to  their  institutions  for  the  rights  and  privileges  which 
are  enjoyed. 

During  the  Revolution  the  clergy  were  very  useful  in  supporting  the 
courage  and  fortitude  of  our  citizens,  and  in  restraining  their  intempe- 
rate passions.  They  have  uniformly  been  the  supporters  of  law  and 
order,  and  to  them  is  popular  education,  in  this  country,  more  indebt- 
ed than  to  any  other  class  of  men.  That  such  men  should  be  pre- 
cluded from  any  concern  in  the  education  of  youth  in  a  literary  insti- 
tution, is  a  reproach  to  a  Christian  country. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  clergy  are  bigoted  men,  and  often  engaged  in 
controversy.  But  other  classes  of  men  are  liable  to  the  same  imputa- 
tion ;  and  nothing  in  the  character  of  clergymen  furnishes  a  good  rea- 
son for  proscribing  their  aid  in  the  education  of  youth.  Clergymen 
differ  chiefly  on  speculative  points  in  religion ;  in  the  fundamental 
points  to  which  my  description  of  religion  is  limited,  they  are  probably 
all  united ;  and  in  support  of  them  they  would  join  in  solid  phalanx  to 
resist  the  inroads  of  licentiousness. 

The  foundation  of  all  free  government  and  of  all  social  order,  must 
be  laid  in  families,  and  in  the  discipline  of  youth.  Young  persons 
must  not  only  be  furnished  with  knowledge^  but  they  must  be  accustom- 
ed to  subordination,  and  subjected  to  the  authority  and  influence  of 
good  principles.  It  will  avail  little  that  youths  are  made  to  understand 
truth  and  correct  principles,  unless  they  are  accustomed  to  submit  to  be 
governed  by  them.  The  speculative  principles  of  natural  religion  will 
have  little  effect,  or  none  at  all,  unless  the  pupil  is  made  to  yield  obedience 
to  the  practical  laws  of  Christian  morality ;  and  the  practice  of  yield- 
ing such  obedience  must  be  familiar,  and  wrought  into  habit  in  early 
life,  or  the  instruction  of  teachers  will,  for  the  most  part,  be  lost  on 
their  pupils.  To  give  efficacy  to  such  a  course  of  education,  the  pupil 
must  believe  himself  to  be  accountable  for  his  actions  to  the  Supreme 
Being,  as  well  as  to  human  laws ;  for,  without  such  belief,  no  depend- 
ence can  be  had  upon  his  fidelity  to  the  laws,  when  urged  to  violate 
them  by  strong  passions,  or  by  the  powerful  temptations  of  present  ad- 
vantage. The  experience  of  the  whole  world  evinces  that  all  the  re- 
straints of  religion  and  law  are  often  insufficient  to  control  the  selfish 
and  malignant  passions  of  men.  Any  system  of  education,  therefore, 
which  limits  instruction  to  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  rejects  the  aids  of 
religion  in  forming  the  characters  of  citizens,  is  essentially  defective. 

In  giving  this  view  of  my  opinions,  I  am  aware  that  I  expose  myself 
to  the  obloquy  of  modern  philosophers.  But  this  I  disregard  ;  for  I 
have,  in  support  of  my  opinions,  the  experience  of  the  whole  civilized 
world,  as  well  as  the  proofs  presented  by  inspired  truth,  from  the  be- 
ginning to  the  end  of  the  Bible ;  that  book  which  the  benevolent  Crea- 
tor has  furnished  for  the  express  purpose  of  guiding  human  reason  in 
the  path  of  safety,  and  the  only  look  which  can  remedy,  or  essentially 
mitigate,  the  evils  of  a  licentious  world. 

From  a  full  conviction  of  these  truths,  I  firmly  believe,  that  without 
material  changes  in  the  principles  now  prevalent  in  the  United  States, 
.our  republican  government  is  destined  to  be  of  short  duration. 


294        EEPLY  TO  A  LETTER  PT   DAVID  MC  CLUEE,  ESQ. 

An  attempt  lo  conduct  the  affairs  of  a  free  government  with  wisdom 
and  impartiality,  and  to  preserve  the  just  rights  of  all  classes  of  citi- 
zens, without  the  guidance  of  Divine  precepts,  will  certainly  end  in 
disappointment.  God  is  the  supreme  moral  Governor  of  the  world  he 
has  made,  and  as  he  himself  governs  with  perfect  rectitude,  he  requires 
his  rational  creatures  to  govern  themselves  in  like  manner.  If  men 
will  not  submit  to  be  controlled  by  His  laws,  he  will  punish  them  by 
the  evils  resulting  from  their  own  disobedience. 

Be  pleased,  sir,  to  accept  the  respects  of  your  obedient  servant, 
,  N.  Webster, 


295  m- 


^■m-^-'-.K,.     ..^j 


CHAPTER   XV. 

LETTER    TO   A    YOUNG    GENTLEMAN    COMMENCING 
HIS    EDUCATION. 

My  Dear  Feiend — As  you  are  now  commencing  a  course  of  clas- 
Bical  education,  and  need  the  guidance  of  those  who  have  preceded 
you  in  the  same  course,  you  can  not  but  receive  with  kindness,  and 
treat  with  attention,  the  remarks  of  a  friend,  whose  affection  for  you, 
excites  in  him  a  deep  solicitude  for  your  future  reputation  and  happi- 
ness. I  feel  the  more  desirous  to  furnish  you  with  some  hints  for  the 
direction  of  your  studies,  for  I  have  experienced  the  want  of  such  helps 
myself;  no  small  portion  of  my  life  having  been  spent  in  correcting 
the  errors  of  my  early  education. 

It  has  been  often  remarked,  that  men  are  the  creatures  of  habit. 
The  rudiments  of  knowledge  we  receive  by  tradition ;  and  our  first  ac- 
tions are,  in  a  good  degree,  modeled  by  imitation.  Nor  ought  it  to  be 
otherwise.  The  respect  which  young  persons  feel  for  their  parents, 
superiors  and  predecessors  is  no  less  the  dictate  of  reason,  than  the 
requirement  of  heaven ;  and  the  propensity  to  imitation,  is  no  less  nat- 
ural, than  it  may  be  useful.  These  principles  however,  like  many 
others,  when  pursued  or  indulged  to  an  extreme,  produce  evil  effects  ; 
as  they  often  lead  the  young  to  embrace  error  as  well  as  truth.  Some 
degree  of  confidence  in  the  opinions  of  those  whom  we  respect,  is 
always  a  duty — in  the  first  stages  of  life,  our  confidence  in  parents 
must  be  implicit,  and  our  obedience  to  their  will  complete  and  unre- 
served. In  later  stages  of  life,  as  the  intellectual  faculties  expand  and 
the  reasoning  power  gains  strength,  implicit  confidence  in  the  opinions 
even  of  the  most  distinguished  men,  ceases  to  be  a  duty.  We  are  to 
regard  their  opinions  only  as  probably  correct ;  but  refer  the  ultimate 
decision  of  this  point  to  evidence  to  be  collected  from  our  own  reason- 
ings or  researches.  All  men  are  liable  to  err ;  and  a  knowledge  of 
this  fact  should  excite  in  us  constant  solicitude  to  obtain  satisfactory 
reasons  for  every  opinion  we  embrace. 

As  men  are  furnished  with  powers  of  reason,  it  is  obviously  the  de- 
sign of  the  Creator,  that  reason  should  be  employed  as  their  guide,  in 
every  stage  of  life.  But  reason,  without  cultivation,  without  experi- 
ence and  without  the  aids  of  revelation,  is  a  miserable  guide  ;  it  often 
errs  from  ignorance,  and  more  often  from  the  impulse  of  passion. 
The  first  questions  a  rational  being  should  ask  himself,  are,  Who  made 
me  ?  Why  loas  I  made  ?  What  is  my  duty  ?  The  proper  answers  to 
these  questions,  and  the  practical  results,  constitute,  my  dear  friend, 
the  whole  business  of  life. 

Now  reason,  unaided  by  revelation,  can  not  answer  these  questions. 
The  experience  of  the  pagan  world  has  long  since  determined  this 
point.  Revelation  alone  furnishes  satisfactory  information  on  these 
subjects.     Let  it  then  be  the  first  study  that  occupies  your  mind,  to 


296  LETTER  TO   A   YOUNG  GENTLEMAN 

learn  from  the  Scriptures  the  character  and  will  of  your  Maker ;  the 
end  or  purpose  for  which  he  gave  you  being  and  intellectual  powers, 
and  the  duties  he  requires  you  to  perform.  In  all  that  regards  faith 
and  practice,  the  Scriptures  furnish  the  principles,  precepts  and  rules, 
by  which  you  are  to  be  guided.  Your  reputation  among  men ;  your 
own  tranquillity  of  mind  in  this  life ;  and  all  rational  hope  of  future 
happiness,  depend  on  an  exact  conformity  of  conduct  to  the  commands 
of  God  revealed  in  the  sacred  oracles. 

The  duties  of  men  are  summarily  comprised  in  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, consisting  of  two  tables ;  one  comprehending  the  duties  which 
we  owe  immediately  to  God — the  other,  the  duties  we  owe  to  our  fel- 
low men.  Christ  himself  has  reduced  these  commandments  under  two 
general  precepts,  which  enjoin  upon  us,  to  love  the  Lord  our  God  with 
all  our  heart,  with  all  our  soul,  with  all  our  mind  and  with  all  our 
strength — and  to  love  our  neighbor  as  ourselves.  On  these  two  com- 
mandments hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets  ;  that  is,  they  compre- 
hend the  substance  of  all  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  the  Bible,  or 
the  whole  of  religion. 

The  first  duty  of  man  then  is  to  love  and  reverence  the  Supreme 
Being.  The  fear  of  God  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom  or  religion.  But 
the  love  of  God  implies  some  knowledge  of  his  character  and  attri- 
butes— and  these  are  to  be  learned  partly  by  a  view  of  his  stupendous 
works  in  creation,  but  chiefly  from  the  revelations  of  himself  recorded 
in  the  Scriptures.  The  great  constituent  of  love  to  the  Supreme  Being 
is  however  an  entire  complacency  in  his  character  and  attributes,  and 
unqualified  approbation  of  his  law,  as  a  rule  of  life.  Such  compla- 
cency and  approbation  can  exist  only  in  a  holy  heart — a  heart  that  de- 
lights in  moral  excellence.  But  wherever  they  exist,  they  produce  a 
correspondent  purity  of  life.  The  natural  efiect  then  of  a  real  con- 
formity of  heart  to  the  first  and  great  commandment,  which  enjoins 
supreme  love  to  God,  is,  to  produce  conformity  of  life  to  the  injunction 
of  the  second  command,  to  love  our  neighbor  as  ourselves. 

In  applying  the  commands  of  God  to  practice,  be  careful  to  give  to 
them  the  full  intended  latitude  of  meaning.  The  love  of  God  com- 
prehends the  love  of  all  his  attributes — the  love  of  his  justice  in  con- 
demning and  punishing  sin,  as  well  as  of  his  mercy  in  forgiving  and 
saving  penitent  sinners — the  love  of  his  sovereignty  as  well  as  of  his 
grace.  The  divine  character  is  an  entire  thing ;  and  there  can  be  no 
genuine  love  to  the  Supreme  Being  which  does  not  embrace  his  whole 
character.  When  in  obedience  to  the  third  commandment  of  the  deca- 
logue, you  would  avoid  profane  swearing,  you  are  to  remember  that 
this  alone  is  not  a  full  compliance  with  the  prohibition,  which  compre- 
hends all  irreverent  words  or  actions,  and  whatever  tends  to  cast  con- 
tempt on  the  Supreme  Being,  or  on  his  word  and  ordinances. 

When  you  abstain  from  secular  employments,  on  the  Sabbath,  and 
attend  public  worship,  you  must  not  suppose  that  you  fully  comply  with 
the  requisitions  of  the  fourth  commandment,  unless  you  devote  the 
whole  day  to  religious  improvement.  If  you  spend  any  part  of  the  day 
in  convivial  entertainment,  in  reading  novels,  plays,  history,  geography 
or  travels,  you  undoubtedly  violate  the  letter  as  well  as  the  spirit  of  that 
command.  -M, 


COMMENCING   HIS   EDUCATION.  297 

The  command  to  honor  your  father  and  mother  comprehends  not 
only  due  respect  and  obedience  to  your  parents ;  but  all  due  respect  to 
other  superiors.  The  distinction  of  age,  is  one  established  by  God 
himself,  and  is  perhaps  the  only  difference  of  rank  in  society,  which 
is  of  divine  origin.  It  is  a  distinction  of  the  utmost  importance  to  soci- 
ety, it  can  not  be  destroyed,  and  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten.  Hence 
filial  respect  has  ever  been  esteemed  one  of  the  most  amiable  virtues. 
Let  your  respect  for  your  parents,  and  others  who  are  of  like  age  or 
standing  in  society,  be  sincere,  cordial  and  uniform  ;  and  let  the  feel- 
ings of  your  heart  be  manifest  in  your  exterior  deportment.  Never 
forget  the  deference  due  to  their  age,  nor  treat  them  with  a  familiarity 
that  is  incompatible  with  that  deference.  Even  the  customary  forms 
of  address  should  not  be  overlooked,  or  neglected  ;  for  in  doing  honor 
to  age,  you  honor  a  divine  command,  and  secure  to  yourself  a  source 
of  permanent  consolation.  It  will  afford  you  particular  satisfaction, 
when  your  p9.rents  are  consigned  to  the  tomb- 
In  obedience  to  the  sixth  command  you  are  not  merely  to  avoid 
direct  homicide,  but  you  are  to  avoid  every  thing  that  may  indirectly 
or  consequentially  impair  your  own  health,  or  injure  that  of  others. 
Intemperance  or  excessive  indulgence  of  passion  and  appetite  which 
gradually  weakens  the  constitution,  falls  within  the  prohibition  of  this 
commandment ;  as  does  every  known  unnecessary  exposure  of  the 
body  to  extreme  hardship. 

From  your  education  and  principles,  it  is  presumed  that  there  is  lit- 
tle need  of  cautioning  you  against  a  violation  of  the  eighth  command- 
ment, by  a  felonious  taking  of  the  property  of  another,  in  a  manner  to 
incur  the  penalties  of  human  laws.  But  the  prohibition  covers  much 
broader  ground — it  extends  to  every  species  of  fraud  or  deception  by 
which  the  property  of  another  is  taken  or  withheld  from  him.  If  in 
receiving  or  paying  money,  a  mistake  throws  into  your  hands  a  sum  of 
money  beyond  what  is  your  right,  it  is  a  violation  of  the  eighth  com- 
mand to  retain  that  sum  in  your  own  hands,  let  it  be  never  so  small. 
You  are  under  the  same  moral  obligation  to  return  the  surplus  money  to 
the  rightful  owner,  as  you  are  not  to  take  a  like  sum  from  him  by  theft. 

In  like  manner,  in  trade,  the  man  who  by  deception  gets  a  dollar 
more  for  an  article,  than  the  purchaser  would  have  given,  had  he  not 
been  deceived,  is  in  the  view  of  God  as  guilty  as  if  he  had  taken  that 
dollar  from  the  purchaser's  chest.  ' 

The  man  who  by  an  artifice  conceals  the  defects  of  his  goods,  or 
gives  them  a  false  appearance,  and  thus  deceives  the  purchaser,  is 
guilty  of  fraud ;  and  any  money  that  he  may  get  by  this  deception,  is 
taken  as  wrongfully  as  if  taken  by  theft. 

The  farmer  who  brings  his  produce  to  market,  and  sells  it  in  a  bad 
state,  knowing  it  to  be  defective  and  concealing  the  defect,  or  giving  a 
false  representation  of  it,  is  guilty  of  fraud,  and  falls  within  the  pur- 
view of  the  eighth  command. 

The  man  who  adulterates  his  drugs,  and  sells  them  as  genuine,  cer- 
tainly violates  the  eighth  command,  and  may  violate  the  sixth. 

The  wine  seller  and  the  distiller  who  mix  and  adulterate  their  liquors, 
and  sell  them  for  what  they  are  not,  are  guilty  of  fraud,  and  in  a  great- 
er or  less  degree  fall  within  the  prohibition  of  the  eighth  command ; 

38 


298  LETTER  TO  A  YOUNG  GENTLEMAN 

and  by  using  poisonous  substances  in  such  adulteration,  they  may  incur 
the  guilt  of  the  sixth. 

The  methods  by  which  this  command  is  violated  in  the  ordinary 
commerce  of  life,  are  literally  innumerable — and  if  judgment  should 
be  laid  to  the  line,  who  could  stand  ? 

Be  very  careful  then  to  resist  every  temptation  to  deception  and 
fraud.  Let  every  transaction  with  your  fellow  men  be  just  and  hon- 
orable. This  is  required  no  less  by  your  own  reputation,  than  by  the 
law  of  God  ;  for  deception  in  every  form  is  meanness. 

Nor  would  I  have  you  more  careful  of  your  neighbor's  property  than 
of  his  good  name,  which  is  dearer  to  him  than  his  property.  Say 
nothing  of  your  neighbor  falsely ;  and  never  publish  his  faults,  unless 
to  circumscribe  their  influence,  or  prevent  an  injury  to  other  men. 

Let  it  then  be  the  first  study  of  your  early  years,  to  learn  in  what 
consists  real  worth  or  dignity  of  character.  To  ascertain  this  impor- 
tant point,  consider  the  character  and  attributes  of  the  Supreme  Being. 
As  God  is  the  only  perfect  being  in  the  universe,  his  character,  con- 
sisting of  all  that  is  good  and  great,  must  be  the  model  of  all  human 
excellence  ;  and  his  laws  must  of  course  be  the  only  rules  of  conduct 
by  which  his  rational  creatures  can  reach  any  portion  of  like  excel- 
lence. In  the  very  nature  of  things  then  a  man  is  exalted  in  propor- 
tion to  his  conformity  to  the  divine  standard  of  worth ;  and  degraded 
in  proportion  to  his  want  of  conformity  to  that  standard.  Nothing  can 
be  really  honorable  and  dignified^  which  is  not  in  exact  accordance  with 
rectitude.  Let  this  be  imprinted  on  your  mind  as  the  first  principle  of 
moral  science.  A  violation  of  human  laws  implies  meanness  as  well  as 
wickedness ;  it  impairs  the  reputation  and  lessens  the  moral  worth  of 
the  offender — much  more  does  a  transgression  of  the  divine  law,  imply 
want  of  dignity  and  self-respect,  as  well  as  contempt  for  the  Supreme 
Lawgiver — it  sinks  a  man  in  his  own  estimation,  and  debases  him  in 
the  opinion  of  his  fellow  men. 

Nothing  can  be  more  false  than  the  opinion  that  honor  can  exist  with- 
out moral  rectitude.  Every  violation  of  moral  duty  is  meanness  as 
well  as  crime — for  it  implies  a  disposition  to  offend  or  treat  with  con- 
tempt the  greatest  and  best  being  in  the  universe,  or  a  disposition  to  in- 
jure a  fellow  citizen,  or  both  ;  and  a  disposition  in  one  being  to  injure 
another,  implies  a  want  of  that  benevolence  and  love  of  justice  which 
are  essentiaf  to  greatness  of  mind,  which  regards  primarily  the  com- 
mon welfare  and  happiness  of  moral  beings. 

Real  honor  then  consists  in  a  disposition  to  promote  the  best  interests 
of  the  human  family — that  is,  in  an  exact  conformity  of  heart  and  life 
to  the  divine  precepts.  Whatever  voluntary  conduct  in  man  impairs 
human  happiness  or  introduces  disorder  into  society,  manifests  a  defect 
of  character,  a  destitution  of  honorable  principles. 

One  of  the  first  efforts  of  an  ingenuous  mind,  is  to  disabuse  itself  of 
the  prejudice,  that  the  laws  of  honor  may  require  or  justify  what  the 
laws  of  God  and  man  forbid.  Amidst  the  corrupt  maxims  of  fashion- 
able life,  no  young  man  is  safe,  whose  mind  is  not  elevated  to  that  pitch 
of  moral  heroism,  which  enables  him  to  combat  successfully  with 
vicious  principles  disguised  under  the  garb  of  honor.  The  laws  of 
honor,  so  called,  are  derived  from  pagans  and  barbarians ;  they  hang 


COMMENCING   HIS   EDUCATION.  "  299 

on  half  civilized  men,  as  the  tawdry  trappings  of  savage  ancestors — 
they  deform  the  manners  and  debase  the  character  of  the  age.  To 
weak  minds,  less  under  the  influence  of  principle  than  of  fashion,  they 
present  fascinations  not  easily  resisted.  But  let  it  be  deeply  impressed 
on  your  mind,  that  no  person  is  duly  fortified  against  their  enticements, 
who  is  not  convinced,  and  who  does  not  habitually  act  from  the  convic- 
tion that  moral  principles  and  practice  are  essential  to  the  character  of 
a  gentleman.  Whatever  may  be  a  man's  external  deportment,  his  po- 
liteness, or  his  hospitality,  if  he  will  seduce  my  wife,  my  sister,  or  my 
daughter ;  if  he  will  take  my  money  from  me  at  the  gaming  table,  or 
my  life  in  a  duel,  he  is  destitute  of  the ^rs^  requisites  of  a  gentleman — 
justice,  humanity,  benevolence,  and  real  dignity  of  mind.  Under  a 
polished  exterior,  he  conceals  the  heart  of  a  barbarian. 

On  the  subject  of  dueling,  I  would  further  observe,  that  the  practice, 
far  from  exhibiting  unequivocal  proof  of  true  courage,  evinces,  in  my 
view,  the  most  disgraceful  cowardice.  It  proves  a  man  to  be  more 
afraid  of  the  scorn  of  perverted  minds,  than  of  the  wrath  of  heaven, 
or  the  vengeance  of  the  law — more  afraid  of  incurring  the  contempt  of 
unprincipled  men,  than  of  forfeiting  the  favor  of  the  most  perfect  judge 
of  right  and  wrong,  and  of  the  most  virtuous  of  his  fellow  citizens — 
more  afraid  of  a  temporary  stigma  on  his  own  reputation,  than  of 
sacrificing  all  his  obligations  to  his  family  and  friends,  and  of  plunging 
his  parents,  his  wife,  his  children,  and  his  brethren  in  the  deepest  dis- 
tress— nay,  if  married,  more  afraid  of  popular  odium  incurred  by 
manly  rectitude,  than  of  violating  his  solemn  marriage  vows,  which 
have  pledged  his  veracity  and  his  honor,  to  provide  for  his  consort,  and 
to  cherish  her  with  tenderness.  This  species  of  cowardice,  this  miser- 
able, this  mean  obsequiousness  to  popular  prejudice,  is  evidence  of  a 
degraded  mind,  and  an  indelible  stain  on  the  human  character. 

There  is  another  view  of  this  subject  which  ought  not  to  be  over- 
looked. Duels  almost  always  originate  in  a  defect  of  true  politeness — 
and  a  challenge  accepted,  is  presumptive  evidence  that  the  parties  are 
not  gentlemen,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  word  should  always  be  under- 
stood, and  in  which  alone  it  can  be  correctly  used.  A  real  gentleman 
never  voluntarily  gives  offense ;  and  if  he  offends  without  design,  he 
instantly  acknowledges  his  error.  The  offended  party,  if  a  real  gen- 
tfeman,  will  as  promptly  accept  this  acknowledgment.  If  the  parties 
disagree  as  to  the  nature  and  aggravation  of  the  offense,  and  the  value 
of  the  atonement  offered,  if  they  are  really  gentlemen,  they  will  read- 
ily submit  the  decision  of  the  question  to  an  impartial  friend,  and  rest 
satisfied  with  his  decision.  In  nine  cases  of  ten,  perhaps  in  every  case 
of  an  appeal  to  arms,  to  obtain  satisfaction  for  injuries  or  affronts,  it 
may  be  clearly  seen  by  the  impartial  world,  that  the  affair  has  proceed- 
ed from  a  defect  of  real  honor  and  good  breeding  in  one  party  or  in 
both.  Instead  therefore  of  vindicating  their  honor  by  arms,  they  man- 
ifest to  the  world  that  they  are  destitute  of  the  genuine  principles  of 
good  breeding,  and  of  the  real  magnanimity  which  is  characteristic  pf 
gentlemen. 

In  selecting  books  for  reading,  be  careful  to  choose  such  as  furnish 
the  best  helps  to  improvement  in  morals,  literature,  arts  and  science ; 
preferring  profit  to_^pleasure,  and  instruction  to  amusement.  ^  A  sinaJl 


300  LETTER  TO  A  YOUNG  GENTLEMAN 

portion  of  time  may  be  devoted  to  such  reading  as  tends  to  relax  the 
mind,  and  to  such  bodily  amusements  as  serve  to  invigorate  muscular 
strength  and  the  vital  functions.  But  the  greatest  part  of  life  is  to  be 
employed  in  useful  labors,  and  in  various  indispensable  duties,  private, 
social,  and  public.  Man  has  but  little  time  to  spare  for  the  gratification 
of  the  senses  and  the  imagination.  I  would  therefore  caution  you 
against  the  fascinations  of  plays,  novels,  romances,  and  that  species  of 
descriptive  writing  which  is  employed  to  embellish  common  objects, 
without  much  enlarging  the  bounds  of  knowledge,  or  to  paint  imaginary 
scenes,  which  only  excite  curiosity,  and  a  temporary  interest,  and  then 
vanish  in  empty  air. 

The  readers  of  books  may  be  comprehended  in  two  classes — those 
who  read  chiefly  for  amusement,  and  those  who  read  for  instruction. 
The  first,  and  far  the  most  numerous  class,  give  their  money  and  their 
time  for  private  gratification ;  the  second  employ  both  for  the  acquisi- 
tion of  knowledge  which  they  expect  to  apply  to  some  useful  purpose. 
The  first  gg^in  subjects  of  conversation  and  social  entertainment ;  the 
second  acquire  the  means  of  public  usefulness  and  of  private  elevation 
of  character.  The  readers  of  the  first  class  are  so  numerous,  and  the 
thirst  for  novelty  so  insatiable,  that  the  country  must  be  deluged  with 
tales  and  fiction ;  and  if  you  suffer  yourself  to  be  hurried  along  with 
the  current  of  popular  reading,  not  only  your  time,  but  your  mind  will 
be  dissipated  ;  your  native  faculties,  instead  of  growing  into  masculine 
vigor,  will  languish  into  imbecility.  Bacon  and  Newton  did  not  read 
tales  and  novels ;  their  great  minds  were  nourished  with  very  different 
aliment. 

Theatrical  entertainments  have  strong  attractions,  especially  for  the 
young  and  the  thoughtless.  They  are  vindicated  as  a  rational  and  in- 
structive amusement,  and  men  of  sober  judgment  and  sound  morals 
sometimes  attend  them — not  however,  I  believe,  with  the  expectation  of 
gaining  useful  knowledge  ;  but  for  the  purpose  of  being  entertained 
with  seeing  the  powers  of  the  actors.  They  are  pleased  to  see  one  man 
imitate  another,  and  the  more  exact  the  imitation,  the  more  are  they 
delighted.  The  representation  of  elevated  characters  has  a  show  of 
dignity  ;  the  low  scenes  are  mere  vulgar  buffoonery.  Very  few  plays, 
however,  are  free  from  sentiments  which  are  offensive  to  moral  purity. 
Many  of  them  abound  with  ribaldry  and  vulgarity,  too  gross  for  exhi- 
bition before  persons  of  delicacy  and  refined  manners.  Before  I  can 
believe  the  stage  to  be  a  school  of  virtue,  I  must  demand  proof  that  a 
single  profligate  has  ever  been  reformed,  or  a  single  man  or  woman 
made  a  Christian  by  its  influence.  And  let  me  ask,  what  sort  of  enter- 
tainment is  that  in  which  a  thin  partition  only  separates  the  nobleman 
from  his  lackey,  and  the  duchess  from  her  kitchen-maid  ;  in  which  the 
gentleman  and  the  lady  associate  at  the  same  board  with  the  footman, 
the  oyster-man,  and  the  woman  of  the  town,  and  all  partake  of  the 
same  fare  !  With  what  sentiments  must  superior  beings  look  down  on 
this  motley  school  of  morality  ? 

In  forming  your  connections  in  society,  be  careful  to  select  for  your 
companions  young  men  of  good  breeding,  and  of  virtuous  principles 
and  habits.  The  company  of  the  profligate  and  irreligious  is  to  be 
shunned  as  poison.     You  can  not  always  avoid  some  intercourse  with 


COMMENCING   HIS   EDUCATION.  301 

men  of  dissolute  lives ;  but  you  can  always  select,  for  your  intimate 
associates,  men  of  good  principles  and  unimpeachable  character.  Nev- 
er maintain  a  familiar  intercourse  with  the  profane,  the  lewd,  the  intem- 
perate, the  gamester,  or  the  scoffer  at  religion.  Toward  men  of  such 
character,  the  common  civilities  of  life  are  to  be  observed — beyond 
these,  nothing  is  required  of  men  who  reverence  the  divine  precepts, 
and  who  desire  to  "  keep  themselves  unspotted  from  the  world." 

I  would  advise  you  never  to  become  a  member  of  any  association, 
the  object  of  which  is  concealed.  If  times  and  circumstances,  in  any 
country  and  at  any  period  of  the  world,  have  rendered  such  associa- 
tions necessary  for  the  protection  of  pereon  or  property,  or  for  the 
reformation  of  public  abuses,  no  longer  tolerable,  such  circumstances 
do  not  exist  in  this  country.  Secret  societies  or  clubs,  may  have  inno- 
cent and  even  good  objects  in  view  ;  but  concealment  always  exposes 
them  to  suspicion  ;  and  it  seems  incompatible  with  true  dignity  of  char- 
acter to  expose  one's  self  voluntarily  to  such  suspicions.  A  good  man, 
a  man  of  truly  philanthropic  principles,  will  always  direct  his  views  to 
valuable  objects  of  public  or  private  utility,  and  these  require  no  secrecy. 
Associations  for  intellectual  improvement,  for  executing  useful  under- 
takings, and  for  combining  and  giving  effect  to  exertions  of  benevo- 
lence, are  highly  laudable.  But  always  bear  in  mind  this  important 
fact,  that  men  are  all  members  of  one  great  family,  and  benevolence 
should  know  no  bounds,  but  the  limits  of  this  family.  It  should  there- 
fore be  our  aim  not  to  attempt  to  narrow  the  limits  of  benevolence 
which  God  himself  has  prescribed.  It  may  well  be  questioned,  whether, 
as  society  is  now  constituted,  the  partialities  of  men,  originating  in  dis- 
tinctions, national  and  local,  political  and  religious,  do  not  contract 
the  benevolent  principles  of  our  nature,  within  much  narrower  limits 
than  is  consistent  with  Christian  morality.  No  philanthropist  can  see, 
without  pain,  nations  and  states,  parties  and  religious  sects,  perpetually 
struggling  to  secure,  each  to  itself,  some  exclusive  or  superior  advan- 
tages in  property,  power  or  influence,  and  often  by  means  base  and 
dishonorable.  This  conduct  usually  originates  in  pride  or  selfish  views, 
as  unfriendly  to  social  happiness,  as  they  are  repugnant  to  the  will  of 
our  common  father.  Whether  in  politics  or  religion,  this  is  an  odious 
trait  in  the  human  character. 

When  we  consider  that  men  are  all  brethren  of  the  same  family,  all 
created  with  similar  capacities,  and  vested  with  the  same  natural  rights ; 
and  in  this  country  all  enjoying  equal  civil  and  religious  rights,  under 
the  protection  of  law ;  all  equally  entitled  to  security  and  public  privi- 
leges ;  all  placed  under  the  same  moral  discipline,  and  all  destined  to 
the  same  end — how  disgusting  is  it  to  see  one-  party  or  one  sect  arro- 
gating to  itself  superior  merit,  or  proud  distinction,  and  saying  to  others, 
"  stand  by  thyself — come  not  near  me,  for  I  am  holier  than  thou  .'" 
'Yet  such  is  the  language  of  parties ;  often  in  religion — always  in  gov- 
ernment. When  the  fundamental  principles  of  government  or  our 
holy  religion  are  assaulted,  good  men  must  unite  to  defend  them.  But 
the  most  numerous  and  most  violent  parties  that  trouble  society,  spring 
from  private  ambition  and  interest,  when  no  principles  are  in  jeopardy 
— or  from  an  undue  attachment  to  speculative  opinions  in  politics,  or 
to  the  externals  of  religion ;  and  in  such  parties,  the  human  character 


302  LETTER  TO   A  YOUNG  GENTLEMAN 

is  displayed  in  all  its  depravity  and  degradation.  In  the  tranquil  con- 
dition of  affairs  in  this  country,  when  our  citizens  enjoy  all  the  privi- 
leges which  good  men  can  desire,  and  more  than  many  can  enjoy 
without  abuse,  a  disposition  to  exalt  one  class  of  citizens  and  to  depress 
another,  is  a  foul  reproach  to  men — a  fouler  reproach  to  Christians. 

Never,  my  dear  friend,  degrade  yourself  by  an  unhallowed  alliance 
with  a  political  party  that  assumes  the  right  of  controlling  all  public 
affairs,  to  the  exclusion  of  other  citizens  who  have  equal  rights  and 
equal  property  to  defend,  and  equal  claims  to  a  share  in  the  manage- 
ment of  that  property.  The  attempts  and  often  successful  attempts, 
in  this  country,  to  exclude  one  class  of  citizens  from  any  control  in 
legislation  over  the  property  which  their  industry  has  acquired,  and 
which  bears  its  proportion  of  the  burdens  of  government,  is  as  rude 
•an  assault  on  liberty,  as  ever  disgraced  the  annals  of  despotism.  Ac- 
•custoBi  yourself  from  your  youth  to  consider  all  men  as  your  brethren, 
-and  know  no  distinction  between  fellow  citizens,  except  that  which 
they  make  themselves,  by  their  virhies  or  their  vices  ;  by  their  loorth 
«r  their  meanness. 

A  republican  form  of  government  is  evidently  the  most  rational  form 
that  men  have  devised  for  the  protection  of  person  and  property,  and 
for  securing  liberty.  But  hitherto  no  means  have  been  devised  to 
^uard  this  form  of  government  from  abuse  and  corruption.  Men  in 
republics  are  as  wicked,  and  as  selfish  as  in  monarchies,  and  with  far 
■more  power  to  introduce  disorders,  both  into  legislation  and  into  the 
administration  of  the  laws.  In  republics,  the  influence  of  selfish  and 
ambitious  men  over  the  weak,  the  ignorant  and  unsuspecting,  has  its 
full  range  of  operation ;  and  sooner  or  later,  this  influence  will  place 
in  office  incompetent  men,  or  men  who  will  sacrifice  principle  to  per- 
sonal emolument  or  aggrandizement.  The  corruption  of  the  electors 
is  the  first  step  toward  the  ruin  of  republics ;  and  when  the  sources  of 
power  are  corrupted,  the  evil  hardly  admits  of  a  remedy. 

It  seems  to  be  a  political  axiom,  that  republics  should  be  founded  on 
an  equality  of  rights,  or  so  constructed  as  to  preserve  that  equality. 
But  with  all  the  declamation  which  is  heard  on  this  subject,  this  equality 
of  rights  seems  not  to  be  understood  ;  the  very  terms  want  definition. 
That  all  men  have  an  equal  right  to  the  protection  of  their  persons, 
their  reputation  and  their  property,  is  undeniable.  But  it  may  be 
asked,  has  a  man  who  has  no  property  to  defend,  and  none  to  support 
the  expenses  of  government,  an  equal  right,  to  legislate  upon  property, 
as  a  man  who  has  property  to  guard  and  to  apply  to  the  support  and 
defense  of  his  country  .''  May  it  not  be  true  in  a  republic,  that  a  ma- 
jority of  the  citizens  may  possess  a  minority  of  the  property,  and  may 
it  not  happen  that  the  minor  interest  may  govern  the  major  interest  J 
And  in  this  case,  what  becomes  of  the  equality  of  rights^  on  which  we 
profess  to  found  a  republican  government  ?  When  the  sober,  indus- 
trious citizen,  who,  by  his  toil  and  economy,  collects  a  moderate  es- 
tate, brings  up  a  family  in  good  habits,  and  pays  his  taxes  to  govern- 
ment, finds  that  his  property  and  virtue  give  him  no  influence  or 
advantage  as  a  member  of  the  government,  over  the  idle  penniless 
lounger,  who  earns  little  and  spends  that  little  in  vice,  paying  nothing 
to  government,  what  attachment  can  this  good  citizen  feel  to  the  gov- 


COMMENCING   HIS    EDUCATION.  303 

ernment  ?  What  confidence  can  he  place  in  its  administration  ?  What 
expectation  can  he  entertain  of  its  durability  ?  And  what  sort  of  gov- 
ernment is  that  in  which  the  owners  of  the  country  do  not  govern  it  ? 

Melancholy  as  this  view  of  the  subject  is,  you  are  the  subject  and 
the  citizen  of  a  republic,  and  in  these  characters,  duties  will  devolve  on 
you  of  no  ordinary  magnitude.  As  a  subject,  yield  an  entire  obedience 
to  the  laws  and  established  institutions  of  society.  Never  for  the  paltry 
consideration  of  interest,  resort  to  deception,  concealment  or  equivoca- 
tion, to  evade  your  proper  share  in  the  burdens  of  government.  As  a 
citizen,  exercise  your  rights  with  integrity  and  unshaken  independence 
of  mind.  An  obsequious  elector,  who  temporizes  with  party,  and  yields 
to  every  varying  breeze  of  popular  opinion,  is  a  most  contemptible 
character. 

In  selecting  men  for  office,  let  principle  be  your  guide.  Regard  not 
the  particular  sect  or  denomination  of  the  candidate — look  to  Tiis  char- 
acter as  a  man  of  known  principle,  of  tried  integrity,  and  undoubted 
ability  for  the  office. 

It  is  alledged  by  men  of  loose  principles,  or  defective  views  on  the 
subject,  that  religion  and  morality  are  not  necessary  or  important  quali- 
fications for  political  stations.  But  the  Scriptures  teach  a  different 
doctrine.  They  direct  that  rulers  should  be  men  who  rule  in  the  fear 
of  God,  able  men,  such  as  fear  God,  men  of  truth,  hating  covetousness. 
But  if  we  had  no  divine  instruction  on  the  subject,  our  own  interest 
would  demand  of  us  a  strict  observance  of  the  principle  of  these  injunc- 
tions. And  it  is  to  the  neglect  of  this  rule  of  conduct  in  our  citizens, 
that  we  must  ascribe  the  multiplied  frauds,  breaches  of  trust,  pecula- 
tions and  embezzlements  of  public  property  which  astonish  even  our- 
selves ;  which  tarnish  the  character  of  our  country  ;  which  disgrace  a 
republican  government ;  and  which  will  tend  to  reconcile  men  to 
monarchy  in  other  countries  and  even  in  our  own. 

When  a  citizen  gives  his  suffrage  to  a  man  of  known  immorality, 
he  abuses  his  trust ;  he  sacrifices  not  only  his  own  interest,  but  that  of 
his  neighbor ;  he  betrays  the  interest  of  his  country.  Nor  is  it  of  slight 
importance,  that  men  elected  to  of^ce  should  be  able  men,  men  of 
talents  equal  to  their  stations,  men  of  mature  age,  experience,  and 
judgment ;  men  of  firmness  and  impartiality.  This  is  particularly  true 
with  regard  to  men  who  constitute  tribunals  of  justice — the  main  bul- 
wark of  our  rights — the  citadel  that  maintains  the  last  struggle  of  free- 
dom against  the  inroads  of  corruption  and  tyranny.  In  this  citadel 
should  be  stationed  no  raw,  inexperienced  soldier,  no  weak  temporizing 
defender,  who  will  obsequiously  bend  to  power,  or  parley  with  cor- 
ruption. 

One  of  the  surest  tests  of  a  man's  real  worth,  is  the  esteem  and  con- 
fidence of  those  who  have  long  known  him,  and  his  conduct  in  domestic 
and  social  life.  It  may  be  held  as  generally  true,  that  respect  sponta- 
neously attaches  itself  to  real  worth  ;  and  the  man  of  respectable  vir- 
tues, never  has  occasion  to  run  after  respect.  Whenever  a  man  is 
known  fto  seek  promotion  by  intrigue,  by  temporizing,  or  by  resorting 
to  the  haunts  of  vulgarity  and  vice  for  support,  it  may  be  inferred,  with 
moral  certainty,  that  he  is  not  a  man  of  real  respectability,  nor  is  he 
entitled  to  public  confidence.    As  a  general  rule,  it  may  be  affirmed, 


304  LETTER  TO   A  YOUNG   GENTLEMAN. 

that  the  man  who  never  intrigues  for  office,  may  be  most  safely 
intrusted  with  office ;  for  the  same  noble  qualities,  his  pride,  or  his 
integrity  and  sense  of  dignity,  which  make  him  disdain  the  mean  arts 
of  flattery  and  intrigue,  will  restrain  him  from  debasing  himself  by 
betraying  his  trust.  Such  a  man  can  not  desire  promotion,  unless  he 
receives  it  from  the  respectable  part  of  the  community ;  for  he  consid- 
ers no  other  promotion  to  be  honorable. 

Both  in  government  and  religion,  form  your  opinions  with  delibera- 
tion, and  when  you  have  settled  your  opinions,  adhere  to  them  with 
firmness.  Particularly  would  I  commend  to  you  this  course  in  adopt- 
ing your  religious  creed.  And  when  you  have  attached  yourself  to 
any  system,  from  deliberate  conviction,  do  not  rashly  and  for  light 
causes,  abandon  it.  When  satisfied  that  you  have  embraced  an  error, 
conscience  will  direct  you  to  renounce  it.  But  let  not  a  temporary 
inconvenience,  a  slight,  or  a  fit  of  discontent  for  a  trifling  cause,  induce 
you  to  forsake  the  denomination  with  which  you  have  been  united. 
Such  change  evidences  want  of  principle  or  want  of  firmness  and  sta-- 
bility,  neither  of  which  is  compatible  with  true  dignity  of  character. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

FORM  OF  ASSOCIATION  FOR  YOUNG  MEN. 

We,  firmly  believing  the  revealed  will  of  God,  as  delivered  in  the 
Scriptures,  to  be  the  standard  of  moral  rectitude,  and  moral  rectitude  to 
be  the  only  basis  of  true  honor  and  dignity  of  character,  do  associate 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  efficacy  to  these  principles,  and  for  discounte- 
nancing, as  far  as  our  influence  may  extend,  the  operation  of  principles 
vv^hich  tend  to  render  vice  respectable  or  diminish  its  infamy. 

We  assume  it  to  be  an  incontrovertible  truth  that  the  character  of  the 
Supreme  Being  is  the  only  perfect  model  of  excellence ;  that  a  confor- 
mity to  this  character  in  man,  as  far  as  it  is  practicable,  is  the  only  foun- 
dation of  human  excellence.  These  principles  being  admitted,  the  con- 
verse of  them  must  also  be  admitted,  that  every  crime  and  vice,  that  is, 
every  deviation  from  the  laws  of  God,  is  a  defect  of  honor  or  dignity 
in  the  human  character ;  in  other  words,  must  partake  of  meanness. 

In  pursuance  of  these  principles,  we  hold  ourselves  bound  to  regulate 
our  own  conduct  and  opinions  by  the  revealed  wul  of  God,  and  to  con- 
sider every  known  departure  from  the  rules  which  he  has  prescribed,  as 
disreputable.  We  shall  therefore  consider  every  person,  giving  or  ac- 
cepting a  challenge  to  fight  a  duel,  and  all  persons  acting  as  seconds, 
as  forfeiting  a  character  which  entitles  men  to  respect.  In  like  man- 
ner, we  must  consider  lewdness,  intemperance,  seduction,  gaming,  vio- 
lations of  holy  time,  fraud,  overreaching  in  trade,  falsehood,  deception, 
or  other  vice,  however  common  or  sanctioned  by  fashion,  as  despoiling 
character  of  its  honor  and  respectability,  rendering  those  who  practice 
them  unworthy  of  our  esteem,  and  disqualifying  them  for  intimacy  in 
social  fellowship. 

In  all  our  intercourse  with  our  fellow  men,  we  hold  ourselves  pledg- 
ed to  observe  the  strictest  integrity.  Whether  in  trade  or  in  mechanical 
employments,  all  orders  for  goods  or  work,  sent  from  customers  at  a 
distance,  shall  be  executed  with  the  same  fidelity  as  if  our  customera 
were  present. 

%eeming  the  character  of  the  female  sex  to  have  a  most  important 
bearing  on  the  education  of  youth  and  on  the  moral  habits  of  society, 
we  pledge  ourselves  to  treat  the  sex  with  the  utmost  delicacy  and  respect, 
and  in  all  practicable  ways  to  defend  and  preserve  their  reputation,  exalt 
their  character,  and  extend  the  influence  of  those  amiable  virtues  which 
tend  to  restrain  licentious  manners. 

As  all  citizens  of  this  free  country  have  equal  rights,  and  are  equally 
entitled  to  any  advantages  or  promotion  which  they  may  obtain  by  hon- 
e"  industry,  and  the  lawful  exertions  of  talents,  we  shall  deem  it  dis- 
honorable and  unjust  to  take  any  advantage  over  our  fellow  citizens  by 
secret  associations,  combinations  or  stratagem,  and  we  pledge  ourselves 
never  to  unite  with  any  fraternity  whose  objects  are  concealed  from  the 
public. 

39 


306  FORM   OF  ASSOCIATION   FOE  YOUNG   MEN. 

The  integrity  of  rulers  being  a  chief  guaranty  for  the  faithful  enact- 
ment and  administration  of  laws,  and  religion  the  best  guaranty  for  in- 
tegrity and  fidelity  in  rulers,  we  hold  ourselves  bound,  both  in  con- 
science, and  by  a  regard  to  expedience  and  political  wisdom,  to  con- 
sider a  sincere  respect  for  religion,  and  its  institutions,  as  indispensable 
qualifications  in  legislative,  executive  and  judicial  officers  ;  and  we  shall 
ever  frown  on  attempts  to  elevate  to  such  offices  men  of  licentious  mor- 
als, and  of  known  contempt  for  religion. 

Believing  men  to  be  made  for  active  employments  and  for  usefulness, 
and  a  life  of  idleness  or  devotion  to  pleasure  and  amusements  to  be  im- 
moral in  itself  and  pernicious  to  society,  we  pledge  ourselves  to  give 
no  countenance  or  support  to  persons  whose  occupation  is  to  furnish 
amusements  which  tend  to  demoralize  society. 


CHApAr    XVII. 
MODES   OF   TEACHING   THE    ENGLISH   LANGUAGE. 

Education,  in  the  most  comprehensive  sense  of  the  word,  consists  in 
the  instruction  of  the  young  and  the  ignorant  in  what  is  necessary  or 
useful  for  them  to  know,  in  order  to  be  qualified  to  procure  their  sub- 
sistence, to  correct  their  evil  propensities,  to  direct  their  minds  to  the 
proper  objects,  and  to  form  their  moral,  social  and  religious  characters. 
In  short,  the  objects  of  education  are  to  furnish  pupils  with  the  best 
means  of  providing  for  themselves ;  of  being  useful  in  all  the  relations 
of  life  ;  and  prepared  for  a  future  state  of  happiness.  But  the  remarks 
now  proposed  to  be  made  by  the  writer,  will  be  restricted  to  the  modes 
of  acquiring  knowledge  in  seminaries  of  learning. 

In  the  business  of  teaching,  there  is  one  general  rule  which  is  appli- 
cable to  instruction  in  every  department  of  science  and  literature ;  this 
is  to  begin  with  the  most  simple  elements,  and  proceed  step  by  step  from 
that  which  is  easy  to  that  which  is  more  difficult.  In  this  procedure, 
the  most  important  point  is  to  make  the  pupil  perfectly  master  of  one 
step  or  degree,  before  he  proceeds  to  the  next. 

In  learning  the  English  language,  the  first  thing  is  to  make  the  pupil 
perfectly  acquainted  with  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.  While  he  is  learn- 
ing the  shape  and  the  name  of  each  letter,  he  should  learn  to  repeat 
the  letters  in  the  alphabetical  order,  and  commit  them  to  memory  in 
this  order,  so  as  to  be  able  to  repeat  them  without  the  least  hesitation. 
The  reason  is,  that  every  person  through  life  has  frequent  occasions  to 
use  the  letters  in  this  order,  in  seeking  words  in  a  dictionary,  in  consult- 
ing indexes,  in  arranging  documents,  &c.  Hence  the  extreme  impro- 
priety of  dividing  the  alphabet  into  sections,  and  arranging  the  letters 
in  any  other  order  than  the  alphabetical.  Let  a  child  form  a  habit  of 
repeating  letters  of  the  alphabet  in  any  other  order  than  the  alphabeti- 
cal, and  he  will  be  liable  to  be  embarrassed  with  it  all  his  life.  These 
observations  are  also  applicable  to  learning  the  days  of  the  week  in 
their  order ;  as  also  the  months  of  the  year,  and  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments. 

From  single  letters,  the  pupil  should  proceed  to  combinations  of  two 
letters,  and  learn  perfectly  the  pronunciation  of  each  combination  ;  then 
proceed  to  combinations  of  three  letters ;  and  this  without  much  regard 
to  the  signification  of  words.  The  opinion  that  a  pupil  should  never 
pronounce  a  word  which  he  does  not  understand,  is  a  great  error ;  as  it 
makes  it  necessary  that  a  knowledge  of  spelling  should  proceed  no  faster 
than  that  of  definition.  A  more  absurd  opinion,  and  one  more  directly 
opposed  to  the  laws  of  the  human  mind,  was  never  broached. 

If  it  should  be  objected  that  the  learning  of  the  alphabet  is  difficult,  let 
the  importance  of  the  practice  be  the  answer ;  take  more  time ;  one 
great  fault  in  teaching  is  going  too  fast,  learning  the  first  rudiments  im- 
perfectly, and  thus  retarding  future  progress. 


308  MODES    OF    TEACHING    THE    ENGLISH    LANGUAGE. 

There  are  various  modes  of  teaching,  all  of  which  may  effect  the 
object ;  but  there  are  some  mistakes  which  are  very  common,  and  de- 
serve notice. 

1.  The  first  error  I  shall  notice  iaA^he  practice  of  beginning  to  teach 
children  when  too  young.  It  is  a  common  opinion  that  the  sooner  a 
child  is  put  to  his  books,  the  greater  the  amount  of  knowledge  which 
he  may  obtain  in  a  given  number  of  years.  My  own  observations  do 
not  confirm  this  opinion,  but  the  reverse.  A  child  that  begins  to  learn 
the  letters  of  the  alphabet  at  four  years  old,  will  be  as  far  advanced  at 

five  as  one  that  begins  at  three.  A  child  that  begins  at  three,  will  be 
two  or  three  years  learning  to  read  well ;  but  one  that  begins  at  Jive, 
may  be  taught  to  read  well  in  six  or  eight  weeks.  Experiment  has 
proved  the  fact. 

2.  The  like  mistake  is  made  in  putting  children  to  difficult  studies  at 
too  early  an  age.  A  child  of  five  or  six  years  of  age  is  put  to  the 
study  of  geography,  arithmetic,  or  history ;  his  progress  is  slow  ;  he 
learns  a  little  and  that  imperfectly  ;  and  thus  he  spends  a  winter  or  two 
to  very  little  purpose.  The  same  child  at  nine  or  ten  years  of  age  will 
learn  as  much  in  tivo  months,  as  he  will  at  Jive  or  six  years  of  age  in 
two  winters — and  understand  and  retain  what  he  learns  much  better. 

3.  Another  mistake  is  in  attempting  to  instruct  young  people  in  too 
many  things  at  once.  The  most  important  point  perhaps  in  a  system 
of  instructions,  as  in  every  kind  of  business  is,  to  do  one  thing  at  a 
time.  Mr.  Locke  mentions  this  as  a  primary  rule  to  be  observed  in 
teaching.  When  the  greatest  merchant  in  Holland  was  asked  how  he 
could  transact  such  an  immense  business,  he  replied — By  doing  one 
thing  at  a  time. 

This  rule  is  not  observed  in  our  schools.  The  reverse  is  the  fact,  to 
the  great  detriment  of  education.  Children  are  put  to  several  studies 
the  same  day ;  they  learn  a  little  of  one  thing,  and  then  a  little  of  an- 
other ;  they  learn  nothing  perfectly ;  and  a  great  part  of  what  they  do 
learn  is  soon  forgotten. 

Children  should  first  learn  perfectly  the  letters,  and  their  sounds  in 
combination  in  the  more  easy  syllables  ;  and  these  should  be  so  famil- 
iar that  they  can  pronounce  them  correctly  at  sight  without  hesitation. 
When  this  is  accomplished,  pupils  should  proceed  to  words,  monosyl- 
lables. If  the  words  are  what  are  called  household  words,  as  words  in 
daily  use,  they  probably  understand  their  meaning,  and  if  not,  the 
teacher  may  explain  them.  This,  however,  is  not  very  important,  in 
this  stage  of  instruction ;  as  it  is  the  spelling  and  pronunciation  which 
they  are  now  learning. 

In  this  stage  of  instruction,  are  first  seen  the  benefits  of  classification 
in  elementary  books.  Words  of  like  formation  are  to  be  pronounced 
alike.  Similarity  of  sounds  aids  the  memory.  In  this  and  in  the  fol- 
lowing stage  of  instruction,  the  pupils  should  be  taught  in  classes  ;  and 
every  one  in  the  class  should  be  directed  to  spell  every  toord  in  the  les- 
son, and  then  to  pronounce  every  word.  This  repetition  should  be  con- 
tinued till  every  child  can  spell  and  pronounce  correctly  every  word  in 
the  lesson  without  the  smallest  hesitation.  Such  repetition  will  fasten 
the  true  spelling  and  pronunciation  upon  the  mind  of  every  child  ;  and 
this  process  occasionally  repeated  in  reviews  will  accomplish  the  object. 


%*» 


MODES    OF   TEACHING   THE   ENGLISH   LANGUAGE.  309 

From  monosyllables  the  pupil  will  proceed  to  dissyllables.  In  this 
stage,  a  knowledge  of  accent  is  to  be  added  to  that  of  spelling  and  the 
pronunciation  of  letters.  The  pupil  is  to  be  taught  what  accent  is,  and 
pronounce  every  word  in  the  lesson  with  its  proper  accent.  The  whole 
class  should  be  taught  to  repeat,  pronounce,  and  spell  every  word  in 
the  lesson. 

In  a  proper  classification  of  words,  those  of  like  termination  should 
be  arranged  in  the  same  lessons  or  columns.  In  many  classes  of  words 
of  like  termination,  the  accent  is  uniformly  on  the  same  syllyble ;  that 
is,  at  the  same  distance  from  the  termination.  Suppose  the  pupil  is  to 
spell  words  of  three  syllables  ending  in  ity ;  as  in  amity,  dignity,  len- 
ity ;  he  is  to  be  informed  that  all  words  with  a  similar  ending  have  the 
accent  on  the  last  syllable  but  two,  (the  antepenult.)  When,  by  repeat- 
ing and  spelling  a  lesson  of  these  words,  he  is  made  familiar  with  the 
pronunciation,  he  may  be  put  to  words  of  more  syllables  with  the  same 
termination,  and  the  accent  on  the  same  syllables,  as  in  ability,  de- 
formity,  mutability,  immutability,  infallibility.  From  practice  in  these 
classes,  he  will  learn  to  accent  and  pronounce  correctly  every  word  in 
the  language,  having  a  like  termination. 

In  like  manner,  the  pupil  will  learn  that  all  words  ending  in  tion 
and  sion,  have  the  accent  on  the  last  syllable  but  one,  (the  penult ;) 
that  all  words  ending  in  ology  and  ography,  have  the  accent  on  the  last 
syllable  but  two,  as  in  doxology,  orthography,  Sfc. 

In  order  to  break  ill  habits  in  children,  and  teach  them  a  full  enun- 
ciation of  letters,  a  distinct  articulation  of  syllables,  and  the  proper  ac- 
cent, classes  of  pupils  should  be  made  to  repeat  columns  of  words,  first 
of  one  formation  and  then  of  another.* 

This  is  the  business  of  the  first  year  of  learning ;  it  is  to  learn  letters^ 
syllables  and  words,  pronunciation  and  accent ;  and  these  should  be  so 
familiar  that  a  child  can  pronounce  every  common  word,  correctly,  as 
soon  as  it  is  presented  to  his  eye.  When  this  is  accomplished,  the 
child  is  in  a  state  of  improvement,  which  enables  him  to  enter  upon 
reading  understandingly.  When  he  is  no  longer  perplexed  with  hesi- 
tation about  the  pronunciation,  he  proceeds  with  advantage  to  the  tasks 
of  gaining  ideas,  and  learning  definitions.  One  thing  at  a  time. 
Words  are  to  be  Jirst  learned,  for  they  are  the  instruments  of  subse- 
quent acquisition.  The  practice  of  learning  language  word  by  word, 
without  classification,  must  be  a  slow  method.  It  is  a  peculiar  advan- 
tage in  learning  English,  that  great  numbers  of  the  words  admit  of 
classification — an  advantage  that  does  not  occur  in  some  other  lan- 
guages. 

The  common  method  of  putting  beginners  to  read  easy,  familiar  les- 
sons, which  they  understand,  is  very  judicious.  But  after  they  are 
more  advanced,  and  can  read  without  hesitating,  their  reading  lessons 
should  be  of  a  different  character ;  containing  no  puerile  phrases  ;  no 
baby  language. 

And  here  it  may  be  suggested  that  many  persons  question  the  use- 
fulness of  pictures  in  elementary  books.     A  teacher  in  the  South  rep- 

*  The  spelling  book  does  more  to  form  the  language  of  a  nation  than  all  other 
books. 


310        MODES  OF  TEACHING  THE  ENGLISH  LANGUAGE. 

rebates  the  practice  of  using  pictures ;  parents  remark  that  their  chil- 
dren contract  such  a  habit  of  looking  at  pictures,  that  they  will  not  read 
books  without  them ;  teachers  remark  that  children  employ  most  of 
their  time  in  looking  at  pictures,  turning  over  the  leaves  and  wearing 
them  out,  or  soiling  them.  If  to  some  extent  pictures  are  useful,  it  is 
very  certain,  that  the  practice  of  filling  books  with  pictures  is  carried 
to  excess  ;  they  increase  expense  without  an  equivalent  advantage,  and 
it  may  be  questioned  whether  pictorial  books  have  not  done  as  much 
harm  as  good.  Gentlemen  observe  that  they  have  very  much  promoted 
superficial  learning. 

It  may  be  added  that  many  of  the  pictures  in  school-books  are  not 
representations  of  the  life  of  real  objects  ;  but  fictitious  representations 
formed  by  a  painter  or  the  engraver.  This  fact  may  not  be  generally 
known. 

In  regard  to  books  for  reading  in  seminaries  of  learning,  it  is  impor- 
tant that  most  of  these  should  be  selected  for  important  facts  and  sound 
principles ;  not  for  amusement.  Among  these,  the  history  and  geogra- 
phy of  our  country  should  have  a  prominent  place. 

In  reading  for  the  purpose  of  learning  facts  and  important  truth, 
children  should  not  be  permitted  to  run  over  many  pages  at  a  lesson. 
A  class  of  eight  or  ten  pupils  should  read  a  paragraph  or  short  section, 
every  pupil  of  the  class  repeating  the  same,  till  each  can  read  it  well, 
observing  the  emphasis  and  pauses.  When  each  can  do  this,  then  let 
the  teacher  ask  each  what  the  section  contains ;  what  are  the  facts 
stated,  and  take  care  that  all  understand  the  words  used.*  Definitions 
are  best  learned  by  explaining  words  in  connection. 

The  proper  mode  of  impressing  facts  and  truths  on  the  mind  of 
youth,  is,  by  repetition ;  and  by  competition  in  classes,  to  fix  the  atten- 
tion of  each  pupil  upon  the  subjects  presented  to  them.  A  careless 
perusal  of  several  pages  of  a  book  does  not  answer  the  purpose.  By 
attempting  too  much  at  once,  the  principal  design  is  frustrated. 

This  is  a  prominent  evil  in  most  of  our  schools.  There  is  too  much 
hurry,  and  too  heavy  burdens  are  imposed  on  the  tender  minds  of  youth. 
Hence  the  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  elements  of  language ;  children 
are  urged  forward  to  geography,  history,  arithmetic,  &c.  before  they 
have  learned  to  spell  one  half  of  our  common  words. 

This  is  a  great  error.  In  the  method  here  proposed  of  learning  one 
thing  at  a  time,  and  thai  perfectly,  before  the  pupil  proceeds  to  another 
thing,  he  may  be  made  as  good  a  scholar  in  five  or  six  winters,  as  in 
the  usual  mode  he  can  be  made  in  ten  winters. 

Most  of  the  foregoing  remarks  are  as  applicable  to  the  instruction  of 
youth  in  Latin,  Greek,  and  other  languages,  and  in  the  sciences,  as  they 
are  to  instruction  in  our  own  language. 


*  A  list  of  questions  is  often  inserted  in  books  for  schools,  as  in  History.  The 
expedience  of  this  is  questioned,  as  it  encourages  negligence  and  inattention  in  the 
teacher. 


311 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 
ORIGIN   OF   THE   HARTFORD    CONVENTION    IN    1814. 

Few  transactions  of  the  federalists,  during  the  early  periods  of  our 
government,  excited  so  much  the  angry  passions  of  their  opposers,  as 
the  Hartford  Convention,  (so  called,)  during  the  presidency  of  Mr. 
Madison.  As  I  was  present  at  the  first  meeting  of  the  gentlemen  who 
suggested  such  a  convention ;  as  I  was  a  member  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  in  Maissachusetts,  when  the  resolve  was  passed  for  ap- 
pointing the  delegates,  and  advocated  that  resolve ;  and  further,  as  I 
have  copies  of  the  documents,  which  no  other  person  may  have  pre- 
served, it  seems  to  be  incumbent  on  me  to  present  to  the  public  the 
real  facts  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  measure,  which  have  been  vile- 
ly falsified  and  misrepresented. 

After  the  war  of  1812  had  continued  two  years,  our  public  affairs 
were  reduced  to  a  deplorable  condition.  The  troops  of  the  United 
States,  intended  for  defending  our  sea-coast,  had  been  withdrawn  to 
carry  on  the  war  in  Canada ;  a  British  squadron  was  stationed  in  the 
Sound  to  prevent  the  escape  of  a  frigate  from  the  harbor  of  New  Lon- 
don, and  to  intercept  our  coasting  trade ;  one  town  in  Maine  was  in 
possession  of  the  British  forces ;  the  banks  south  of  New  England  had 
all  suspended  the  payment  of  specie  ;  our  shipping  lay  in  our  harbors 
embargoed,  dismantled,  and  perishing ;  the  treasury  of  the  United 
States  was  exhausted  to  the  last  cent ;  and  a  general  gloom  was  spread 
over  the  country. 

In  this  condition  of  affairs,  a  number  of  gentlemen  in  Northampton 
in  Massachusetts,  after  consultation,  determined  to  invite  some  of  the 
principal  inhabitants  of  the  three  counties  on  the  river,  formerly  com- 
posing the  old  county  of  Hampshire,  to  meet  and  consider  whether 
any  measures  could  be  taken  to  arrest  the  continuance  of  the  war,  and 
provide  for  the  public  safety.  In  pursuance  of  this  determination,  a 
circular  letter  was  addressed  to  several  gentlemen  in  the  three  counties, 
requesting  them  to  meet  at  Northampton.  The  following  is  a  copy  of 
the  letter. 

Northampton,  January  5, 1814. 
Sir — In  consequence  of  the  alarming  state  of  our  public  affairs,  and 
the  doubts  which  have  existed,  as  to  the  correct  course  to  be  pursued 
by  the  friends  of  peace,  it  has  been  thought  advisable  by  a  number  of 
gentlemen  in  the  vicinity,  who  have  conversed  together  upon  the  sub- 
ject, that  a  meeting  should  be  called  of  some  few  of  the  most  discreet 
and  intelligent  inhabitants  of  the  old  county  of  Hampshire,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  a  free  and  dispassionate  discussion  touching  our  public  con- 
cerns. The  legislature  will  soon  be  in  session,  and  would  probably  be 
gratified  with  a  knowledge  of  the  feelings  and  wishes  of  the  people ; 
and  should  the  gentlemen  who  may  be  assembled  recommend  any 


312  ORIGIN    OF    THE    HARTFORD   CONVENTION    IN    1814. 

course  to  be  pursued  by  our  fellow  citizens,  for  the  more  distinct  ex- 
pression of  the  public  sentiment,  it  is  necessary  the  proposed  meeting 
should  be  called  at  an  early  day. 

We  have  therefore  ventured  to  propose  that  it  should  be  held  at  Col. 
Chapman's  in  this  town,  on  Wednesday,  the  nineteenth  day  of  January 
current,  at  12  o'clock  in  the  forenoon,  and  earnestly  request  your  at- 
tendance at  the  above  time  and  place,  for  the  purpose  before  stated. 
With  much  respect,  I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Joseph  Lyman. 

In  compliance  with  the  request  in  this  letter,  several  gentlemen  met 
at  Northampton,  on  the  day  appointed,  and  after  a  free  conversation  on 
the  subject  of  public  affairs,  agreed  to  send  to  the  several  towns  in  the 
three  counties  on  the  river,  the  following  circular  address. 

Sir — The  multiplied  evils  in  which  the  United  States  have  been  in- 
volved by  the  measures  of  the  late  and  present  administration,  are  sub- 
jects of  general  complaint,  and  in  the  opinion  of  our  wisest  statesmen, 
call  for  some  effectual  remedy.  His  excellency,  the  governor  of  the 
commonwealth,  in  his  address  to  the  General  Court,  at  the  last  and 
present  session,  has  stated,  in  temperate  but  clear  and  decided  language, 
his  opinion  of  the  injustice  of  the  present  war,  and  intimated  that  mea- 
sures ought  to  be  adopted  by  the  legislature  to  bring  it  to  a  speedy 
close.  He  also  calls  the  attention  of  the  legislature  to  some  measures 
of  the  general  government,  which  are  believed  to  be  unconstitutional. 
In  all  the  measures  of  the  general  government,  the  people  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  have  a  common  concern  ;  but  there  are  some  laws  and  reg- 
ulations which  call  more  particularly  for  the  attention  of  the  northern 
states,  and  are  deeply  interesting  to  the  people  of  this  commonwealth. 
Feeling  this  interest,  as  it  respects  the  present  and  future  generations,  a 
number  of  gentlemen  from  various  towns  in  the  old  county  of  Hamp- 
shire, have  met  and  conferred  on  the  subject,  and  upon  full  conviction 
that  the  evils  we  suffer  are  not  wholly  of  a  temporary  nature,  spring- 
ing from  the  war,  but  some  of  them  of  a  permanent  character,  result- 
ing from  a  perverse  construction  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  we  have  thought  it  a  duty  we  owe  to  our  country,  to  invite  the 
attention  of  the  good  people  of  the  counties  of  Hampshire,  Hampden, 
and  Franklin,  to  the  radical  causes  of  these  evils. 

We  know  indeed  that  a  negotiation  for  peace  has  been  recently  set 
§^^  on  foot,  and  peace  will  remove  many  public  evils.  It  is  an  event  we 
i  ardently  desire.     But  when  we  consider  how  often  the  people  of  the 

country  have  been  disappointed  in  their  expectations  of  peace,  and  of 
wise  measures ;  and  when  we  consider  the  terms  which  our  administra- 
tion has  hitherto  demanded,  some  of  which  it  is  certain  can  not  be  ob- 
tained, and  some  of  which,  in  the  opinion  of  able  statesmen,  ought  not 
to  be  insisted  on,  we  confess  our  hopes  of  a  speedy  peace  are  not  very 
sanguine. 

But  still  a  very  serious  question  occurs,  whether,  without  an  amend- 
ment of  the  federal  constitution,  the  northern  and  commercial  states 
can  enjoy  the  advantages  to  which  their  wealth,  strength,  and  white 
population  justly  entitle  them.  By  means  of  the  representation  of 
slaves,  the  southern  states  have  an  influence  in  our  national  councils. 


ORIGIN    OF   THE    HAUTFORD   CONVEKTION    IN    1814.  313 

altogether  disproportioned  to  their  wealth,  strength,  and  resources; 
and  we  presume  it  to  be  a  fact  capable  of  demonstration,  that  for  about 
twenty  years  past,  the  Unitod  States  have  been  governed  by  a  repre- 
sentation of  about  two  fifths  of  the  actual  property  of  the  country. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  creation  of  new  states  in  the  south,  and  out  of 
the  original  limits  of  the  United  States,  has  increased  the  southern  in- 
terest, which  has  appeared  so  hostile  to  the  peace  and  commercial  pros- 
perity of  the  northern  states.  This  power,  assumed  by  Congress,  of 
bringing  into  the  Union  new  states,  not  comprehended  within  the  terri- 
tory of  the  United  States,  at  the  time  of  the  federal  compact,  is  deem- 
ed arbitrary,  unjust,  and  dangerous,  and  a  direct  infringement  of  the 
constitution.  This  is  a  power  which  may  hereafter  be  extended,  and 
the  evil  will  not  cease  with  the  establishment  of  peace.  We  would 
ask  then,  ought  the  northern  states  to  acquiesce  in  the  exercise  of  this 
power  ?  To  what  consequences  would  it  lead  ?  How  can  the  people 
of  the  northern  states  answer  to  themselves  and  to  their  posterity,  for 
an  acquiescence  in  the  exercise  of  this  power,  that  augments  an  influ- 
ence already  destructive  of  our  prosperity,  and  will,  in  time,  annihi- 
late the  best  interests  of  the  northern  people  ? 

There  are  other  measures  of  the  general  government,  which,  we 
apprehend,  ought* to  excite  serious  alarm.  The  power  assumed  to  lay 
a  permanent  embargo  appears  not  to  be  constitutional,  but  an  encroach- 
ment on  the  rights  of  our  citizens,  which  calls  for  decided  opposition. 
It  is  a  power,  we  believe,  never  before  exercised  by  a  commercial  na- 
tion ;  and  how  can  the  northern  states,  which  are  habitually  commer- 
cial, and  whose  active  foreign  trade  is  so  necessarily  connected  with 
the  interest  of  the  farmer  and  mechanic,  sleep  in  tranquillity  under  such 
a  violent  infringement  of  their  rights  ?  But  this  is  not  all.  The  late 
act  imposing  an  embargo,  is  subversive  of  the  first  principles  of  civil 
liberty.  The  trade  coast-wise  between  different  ports  in  the  same  state^ 
is  arbitrarily  and  unconstitutionally  prohibited ;  and  the  subordinate 
ofiicers  of  government  are  vested  with  powers  altogether  inconsistent 
with  our  republican  institutions.  It  arms  the  President  and  his  agents 
with  complete  control  of  persons  and  property,  and  authorizes  the  em- 
ployment of  military  force  to  carry  its  extraordinary  provisions  into 
execution. 

We  forbear  to  enumerate  all  the  measures  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment, which  we  consider  as  violations  of  the  constitution,  and  encroach- 
ments upon  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  which  bear  particularly  hard 
upon  the  commercial  people  of  the  north.  But  we  would  invite  our 
fellow  citizens  to  consider  whether  peace  will  remedy  our  public 
evils,  without  some  amendments  of  the  constitution,  which  shall  secure 
to  the  northern  states  their  due  weight  and  influence  in  our  national 
councils. 

The  northern  states  acceded  to  the  representation  of  slaves,  as  a 
matter  of  compromise,  upon  the  express  stipulation  in  the  constitution, 
that  they  should  be  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  commercial 
rights.  These  stipulations  have  been  repeatedly  violated  ;  and  it  can 
not  be  expected  that  the  northern  states  should  be  willing  to  bear  their 
proportion  of  the  burdens  of  the  federal  government,  without  enjoying 
the  benefits  stipulated. 

40 


314  ORIGIN    OF   THE    HARTFORD    CONVENTION    IN    1814. 

If  our  fellow  citizens  should  concur  with  us  in  opinion,  we  would 
suggest  whether  it  would  not  be  expedient  for  the  people  in  town  meet- 
ings, to  address  memorials  to  the  General  Court,  at  their  present  ses- 
sion, petitioning  that  honorable  body  to  propose  a  convention  of  all  the 
northern  and  commercial  states,  by  delegates  to  be  appointed  by  their 
respective  legislatures,  to  consult  upon  measures  in  concert,  for  pro- 
curing such  alterations  in  the  federal  constitution,  as  will  give  to  the 
northern  states  a  due  proportion  of  representation,  and  secure  them 
from  the  future  exercise  of  powers  injurious  to  their  commercial  inter- 
ests ;  or  if  the  General  Court  shall  see  fit,  that  they  should  pursue  such 
other  course,  as  they,  in  their  wisdom,  shall  deem  best  calculated  to 
effect  the  objects. 

The  measure  is  of  such  magnitude  that  we  apprehend  a  concert  of 
states  will  be  useful,  and  even  necessary  to  procure  the  amendments 
proposed  ;  and  should  the  people  of  the  several  states  concur  in  this 
opinion,  it  would  be  expedient  to  act  on  the  subject  without  delay. 

We  request  you,  sir,  to  consult  with  your  friends  on  the  subject,  and 
if  it  should  be  thought  advisable,  to  lay  this  communication  before  the 
people  of  your  town.  In  behalf,  and  by  direction  of  the  gentlemen 
assembled,  Joseph  Lyman,  Chairman. 

In  compliance  with  the  request  and  suggestions  in  this  circular,  many 
town  meetings  were  held,  and  with  great  unanimity  addresses  and 
memorials  were  voted  to  be  presented  to  the  General  Court,  stating 
the  sufferings  of  the  country  in  consequence  of  the  embargo,  the  war, 
and  arbitrary  restrictions  on  our  coasting  trade,  with  the  violations  of 
our  constitutional  rights,  and  requesting  the  legislature  to  take  meas- 
ures for  obtaining  redress,  either  by  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the 
northern  and  commercial  states,  or  by  such  other  measures  as  they 
should  judge  to  be  expedient. 

These  addresses  and  memorials  were  transmitted  to  the  General 
Court,  then  in  session  ;  but  as  commissioners  had  been  sent  to  Europe 
for  the  purpose  of  negotiating  a  treaty  of  peace,  it  was  judged  advisable 
not  to  have  any  action  upon  them,  till  the  result  of  the  negotiation 
should  be  known.  But  during  the  following  summer,  no  news  of  peace 
arrived  ;  and  the  distresses  of  the  country  increasing,  and  the  sea-coast 
remaining  defenseless.  Gov.  Strong  summoned  a  special  i|neeting  of 
the  legislature  in  October,  in  which  the  petitions  of  the  towns  were 
taken  into  consideration,  and  a  resolve  was  passed,  appointing  dele- 
gates to  a  convention  to  be  held  in  Hartford.  The  subsequent  history 
of  that  convention  is  known  by  their  report. 

This  measure  of  resorting  to  a  convention  for  the  purpose  of  arrest- 
ing the  evils  of  a  bad  administration,  roused  the  jealousy  of  the  advo- 
cates of  the  war,  and  called  forth  the  bitterest  invectives.  The  con- 
vention was  represented  as  a  treasonable  combination,  originating  in 
Boston,  for  the  purpose  of  dissolving  the  Union.  But  citizens  of  Boston 
had  no  concern  in  originating  the  proposal  for  a  convention  ;  it  was 
wholly  the  project  of  the  people  in  old  Hampshire  County  ;  as  respect- 
able and  patriotic  republicans  as  ever  trod  the  soil  of  a  free  country. 
The  citizens  who  first  assembled  in  Northampton,  convened  under  the 
authority  of  the  bill  of  rights^  which  declares,  that  the  people  have  a 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    HARTFORD    CONVENTION    IN    1814.  315 

right  to  meet  in  a  peaceable  manner  and  consult  for  the  public  safety. 
The  citizens  had  the  same  right  then  to  meet  in  convention,  as  they 
have  now  ;  the  distresses  of  the  country  demanded  extraordinary  meas- 
ures for  redress ;  the  thought  of  dissolving  the  Union  never  entered  the 
head  of  any  of  the  projectors,  or  of  the  members  of  the  convention  ; 
the  gentlemen  who  composed  it,  for  talents  and  patriotism,  have  never 
been  surpassed  by  any  assembly  in  the  United  States ;  and  beyond  a 
question,  the  appointment  of  the  Hartford  Convention  had  a  very  favor- 
able effect  in  hastening  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty  of  peace. 

All  the  reports  which  have  been  circulated  respecting  the  evil  de- 
signs of  that  convention,  I  know  to  be  the  foulest  misrepresentations. 
Indeed,  respecting  the  views  of  the  disciples  of  Washington  and  the 
supporters  of  his  policy,  many,  and  probably  most  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  in  this  generation,  are  made  to  believe  far  more  false- 
hood than  truth.  I  speak  of  facts  within  my  personal  knowledge.  We 
may  well  say  with  the  prophet,  "  Truth  is  fallen  in  the  street,  and 
equity  can  not  enter."  Party  spirit  produces  an  unholy  zeal  to  de- 
preciate one  class  of  men  for  the  purpose  of  exalting  another.  It  be- 
comes rampant  in  propagating  slander,  which  engenders  contempt  for 
personal  worth  and  superior  excellence  ;  it  blunts  the  sensibility  of  men 
to  injured  reputation  ;  impairs  a  sense  of  honor  ;  banishes  the  charities 
of  life  ;  debases  the  moral  sense  of  the  community  ;  weakens  the  mo- 
tives which  prompt  men  to  aim  at  high  attainments  and  patriotic  achieve- 
ments ;  degrades  national  character,  and  exposes  it  to  the  scorn  of  the 
civilized  world. 


i*-  316 


CHAPTER    XIX. 

A   BRIEF    HISTORY   OF    POLITICAL    PARTIES   IN   THE 
UNITED    STATES. 

The  origin  of  the  two  great  political  parties  which  have  agitated  the 
United  States  for  half  a  century  ;  the  causes  which  have  produced  and 
sustained  them  ;  and  their  injurious  effects  upon  public  measures — are 
subjects  of  deep  interest  to  the  citizens  of  our  confederacy.  As  it  has 
fallen  to  my  lot  to  be  well  acquainted  with  the  origin  and  history  of 
these  parties,  it  may  be  interesting  to  the  present  generation,  most  of 
whom  have  been  born  since  they  originated,  to  see  a  brief  narrative  of 
facts  relating  to  their  origin,  their  respective  motives  and  measures  of 
policy,  and  to  their  influence  in  disturbing  public  harmony,  embarrass- 
ing our  national  councils,  and  interrupting  the  prosperity  of  the  country. 

The  claims  of  Great  Britain  to  govern  the  people  of  this  country, 
when  in  a  colonial  state  ;  to  tax  them  at  pleasure,  and  impose  restric- 
tions on  their  trade,  roused  an  opposition  which  resulted  in  open  resist- 
ance by  force,  and  which  terminated  in  a  revolution.  As  the  inhabit- 
ants of  the  colonies  were  generally  attached  to  their  father-land,  small 
causes  could  not  have  induced  them  to  withdraw  from  it,  by  dissolving 
all  connection  with  its  government.  But  the  stamp  act  and  other  acts 
of  the  British  Parliament  which  our  fathers  deemed  unconstitutional 
and  oppressive,  gradually  produced  a  conviction  in  the  minds  of  the 
more  intelligent  citizens  of  this  country,  that  it  was  necessary  to  resist 
the  British  claims  at  all  hazards. 

In  order  to  prepare  the  minds  of  our  citizens  for  such  a  resistance, 
our  leading  statesmen  deemed  it  necessary  to  attempt  to  detach  the  af- 
fections of  the  people  from  the  British  government  and  nation,  by  pre- 
senting to  their  view  the  corruptions  of  that  government,  as  well  as  the 
consequences  of  their  claim  to  "  bind  the  colonies  in  all  cases  whatso- 
ever." Among  other  things  they  insisted  much  on  the  oppressiveness 
of  the  excise  laws  of  Great  Britain,  and  on  the  injustice  and  corrupt 
use  of  pensions.  These  articles  are  specified  for  the  purpose  of  show- 
ing the  effects  which  the  writings  of  the  fathers  of  the  Revolution  after- 
ward had  on  the  measures  of  our  own  government.  The  declamations 
against  the  oppressive  operation  of  the  excise  laws  of  Great  Britain, 
excited,  in  this  country,  an  extreme  popular  odium  against  that  mode 
of  taxation ;  and  this  odium  directed  against  the  duties  of  excise,  laid 
by  Congress  upon  distilled  spirits,  was  among  the  most  powerful  causes 
of  the  insurrection  in  Pennsylvania.  The  arguments  which  our  writers 
had  used  against  the  oppressive  laws  of  Great  Britain,  to  alienate  our 
citizens  from  the  British  government,  were  turned  with  effect  against  a 
similar  law  of  our  own  government. 

Still  more  general  and  violent  was  the  opposition  in  this  country  to 
pensions.  It  was  represented,  and  probably  with  truth,  that  the  admin- 
istration in  England  used  the  power  of  granting  pensions  for  corrupt 


HISTORY    OF    POLITICAL    PARTIES.  317 

purposes.  Yet  the  practice  of  bestowing  pensions  on  old  public  ser- 
vants, civil  and  military,  when  they  retired  from  office,  was  and  is  a 
noble  feature  in  the  British  government.  But  popular  opinion,  in  this 
country,  made  little  or  no  distinction  between  pensions ;  they  were  all 
condemned  as  unjust,  and  the  continual  clamors  against  them  served 
the  purpose  of  increasing  the  alienation  of  our  citizens  from  the  Brit- 
ish government.  The  prejudices  thus  excited  against  the  practice  of 
granting  pensions,  were,  at  the  close  of  the  revolutionary  war,  di- 
rected against  the  grant  of  half-pay  to  the  officers  of  the  American 
army,  and  its  substitute,  the  grant  of  five  years'  full  pay,  to  indemnify 
them  for  the  losses  they  sustained  by  receiving  in  payment  a  deprecia- 
ted currency. 

Hence  in  the  first  organization  of  our  government  under  the  present 
constitution.  Congress  granted  pensions  only  to  certain  disabled  officers 
or  the  widows  of  officers  ;  neglecting  to  pension  most  of  those  who 
had  assisted  in  achieving  our  independence,  who  descended  into  their 
graves  without  an  indemnification  for  their  losses. 

An  extreme  jealousy  of  the  powers  of  the  government,  which  had 
been  excited  and  fastened  on  the  minds  of  the  Americfti  people  by 
an  opposition  to  the  claims  of  the  British  Parliament,  began  very  early 
to  be  manifested  in  this  country  by  popular  resolutions  against  an  undue 
extension  of  the  powers  of  our  own  government.  An  example  of  this 
jealousy  occurred  in  the  county  of  Fairfax  in  Virginia,  before  the  defin- 
itive treaty  of  1783  was  signed. 

On  the  30th  of  May,  1783,  the  representatives  of  that  county  in  the 
house  of  delegates,  received  instructions  from  their  constituents  on  sev- 
eral subjects.  Among  other  things,  they  were  instructed  to  oppose  all 
attempts  of  Congress  to  obtain  a  perpetual  revenue.  The  people,  giv- 
ing instructions,  considered  the  requisition  of  Congress  on  the  states  for 
revenue,  as  exhibiting  strong  proofs  of  a  lust  of  power.  They  express- 
ed a  decided  opposition  to  the  proposal  of  Congress,  Oct.  10,  1780,  for 
appropriating  the  proceeds  of  unappropriated  lands  that  might  be  ceded 
to  the  United  States.  They  also  recommended  to  their  representa- 
tives in  the  legislature,  to  endeavor  to  obtain  an  instruction  from  the 
general  assembly  to  the  Virginia  delegation  in  Congress,  against  sending 
embassadors  to  the  courts  of  Europe ;  on  the  ground  that,  in  the  cir- 
cumstances then  existing,  the  United  States  were  unable  to  defray  the 
expense.  They  added  that  such  appointments  could  hardly  fail  of  pro- 
ducing dangerous  combinations,  factions  and  cabals  in  the  great  council 
of  America;  and  from  the  great  distance,  and  the  difficulty  of  knowing 
and  examining  their  conduct,  they  argued  that  there  was  danger  that 
some  of  the  persons  sent  might  be  corrupted  and  pensioned,  by  the 
courts  near  which  they  might  reside.  They  supposed  that  consuls 
would  be  sufficient  to  answer  every  good  purpose. 

Not  long  after  appeared,  in  the  northern  states,  a  public  opposition 
to  the  resolve  of  Congress,  granting  to  the  officers  of  the  revolutionary 
army  five  years'  extra  pay,  to  make  good  their  losses  by  the  deprecia- 
tion of  continental  bills.  It  must  be  remarked  that  Congress,  to  make 
good  such  losses,  had  at  first  passed  a  resolve  to  grant  the  officers  half 
pay  for  life.  This  grant  alarmed  the  people,  who  considered  it  as  the 
beginning  of  that  odious  practice  of  pensioning,  which  existed  in  Great 


818  HISTORY    OF    POLITICAL    PARTIES 

Britain ;  and  such  was  the  clamor  excited  by  it,  that  Congress  substi- 
tuted for  it  the  grant  of  five  yeai*s'  full  pay,  which  was  generally  called 
the  conunufation. 

The  commutation  however  did  not  satisfy  the  people.  On  the  4th 
of  July,  1783,  a  popular  meeting  was  held  in  Amenia,  in  Duchess 
County,  N.  Y.,  in  which  it  was  resolved  that  the  officers  of  the  late  army 
were,  neither  in  justice  nor  equity  entitled  to  half-pay  or  to  five  years' 
full  pay,  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  Because  when  they  entered  the  service,  neither  Congress  nor  the 
state  engaged  to  them  any  such  thing',  and  that,  if  in  the  hour  of  distress 
with  Congress,  the  officers  availed  themselves  of  a  promise  for  the  same, 
neither  the  honor  nor  the  justice  of  the  state  was  pledged  to  fulfill  it. 

2.  Because  the  depreciation  of  their  pay  had  been  fully  made  up, 
while  most  of  the  citizens  had  equally  suffered  by  depreciation  of  the 
currency. 

3.  Because  they  judged  it  unjust  to  make  an  odious  and  partial  dis- 
tinction between  officers  and  privates. 

4.  Because  the  state  had  engaged  to  the  officers  a  generous  bounty 
in  the  best  l*ids  in  the  state. 

5.  Because  such  pensions  would  lay  a  foundation  to  enslave  a  free 
state. 

6.  Because  it  would  make  an  undue  discrimination  between  the  ser- 
vice of  the  line  and  of  the  militia.     And 

Lastly,  because  such  pensions  would  endanger  the  making  so  many 
drones  in  the  state  hive. 

On  the  15th  of  July,  1783,  a  town  meeting  was  held  in  Torrington, 
in  Connecticut,  in  which  the  justice  of  the  five  years'  pay  to  the  officers 
was  called  in  question.  The  meeting  resolved,  that  although  they  had 
the  highest  opinion  of  the  merits  of  the  officers,  and  admitted  that  strict 
justice  ought  to  be  awarded  to  them  ;  yet  that  many  of  them  had  found 
employment  in  the  army,  when  they  had  lost  other  employment ;  that 
many  of  them  had  enriched  themselves  ;  that  men  who  had  entered  the 
army  poor,  had  returned  in  affluence ;  that  it  was  doubtful  whether 
Congress  had  the  power  to  make  a  grant  of  extra  compensation  to  the 
officers  ;  they  believed  not ;  that  such  a  grant  was  not  a  charge  of  the 
war ;  that  deranged  officers  were  to  receive  a  pension ;  that  officers 
continuing  in  the  army  were  to  receive  a  pension ;  that  pensions  were 
always  agreeable  to  men  in  office,  but  destructive  to  the  community. 
Such  was  the  substance  of  their  objections.  Several  other  towns  held 
meetings  and  peissed  similar  resolves  on  this  subject. 

On  the  21st  of  August,  a  town  meeting  was  held  in  Killingworth,  in 
which  the  grant  to  the  officers  was  boldly  denounced.  It  was  resolved, 
that  Congress  had  no  power  to  make  such  a  grant,  and  that  the  states 
were  not  bound  to  make  it  good.  The  meeting  closed  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  committee  to  correspond  with  the  other  towns  on  the  subject. 

Major  William  Judd,  of  Farmington,  who  had  been  an  officer  in  the 
army,  was"  designated  by  his  brother  officers,  to  procure  for  them  the 
certificates  or  securities,  to  which  they  were  entitled  under  the  resolve 
of  Congress.  He  repaired  to  the  seat  of  government,  and  petitioned 
Congress  to  adjust  the  claims  of  the  officers,  that  the  balances  might  be 
received.     On  the  22d  of  March,  1783,  Congress  passed  a  resolution 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  319 

for  the  purpose.  Major  Judd  received  the  securities,  and  was  on  his 
return,  when  on  Sabbath  evening,  August  3d,  the  time  when  he  was  ex- 
pected to  arrive  in  Farmington,  the  populace  collected  with  a  view  to 
seize  the  securities,  to  prevent  them  from  being  delivered  to  the  officers. 
He  had  notice  of  their  design  and  avoided  them.  The  next  morning, 
the  populace  assembled  at  his  house,  but  the  Major  could  not  be  found. 
Disappointed  of  their  object,  they  resolved  themselves  into  a  town  meet- 
ing. In  this  proceeding,  they  anticipated  the  town  meeting  which  had 
been  previously  warned  to  be  held  the  next  day. 

In  this  meeting,  the  most  respectable  people  of  the  town  attended, 
and  an  unanimous  vote  was  passed,  condemning,  "  in  terms  of  the  high- 
est resentment,"  the  conduct  of  Major  Judd,  declaring  that  it  tended  to 
the  subversion  of  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  merited  the  severest 
reprehension  of  the  town.  They  then  appointed  a  committee  to  serve 
Major  Judd  with  a  copy  of  the  vote.  The  subject  of  commutation  was 
then  discussed,  and  the  grant  of  Congress  was  denounced  as  unjust, 
impolitic,  oppressive  to  the  people,  subversive  of  the  principles  of  a 
republican  government,  and  a  dangerous  precedent. 

The  meeting  then  appointed  a  committee  to  correspond  with  the  com- 
mittees of  other  towns,  with  power  to  propose  a  convention  of  delegates 
to  consult  on  the  means  of  counteracting  the  effect  and  operation  of  the 
commutation. 

On  the  23d  of  August,  a  committee  consisting  of  Thomas  Seymour, 
Hugh  Ledlie,  George  Smith,  Seth  Collins  and  Daniel  Pitkin,  of  Hart- 
ford, John  Robbins  of  Wethersfield,  and  Wait  Goodrich  of  Glasten- 
bury,  notified  that  a  meeting  or  general  convention  of  delegates  of 
towns  should  be  held  at  Middletown,  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  Sep- 
tember then  next,  to  consider  what  ought  to  be  done  upon  the  subject 
of  the  commutation,  in  order  to  some  constitutional  mode  of  redress. 

On  the  16th  of  September  following,  the  town  of  Hartford  gave  in- 
structions to  their  representatives,  in  the  legislature,  Thomas  Seymour 
and  George  Pitkin.  In  these  instructions,  the  representatives  were  ex- 
pressly directed  strenuously  to  oppose  all  encroachments  of  the  Ameri- 
can Congress  on  the  sovereignty  and  jurisdiction  of  the  separate  states, 
and  every  assumption  of  power  not  expressly  vested  in  them  by  the 
confederation  ;  to  thoroughly  investigate  the  question  whether  Congress 
had  power  to  grant  half  pay  for  life  to  the  oflScers  of  the  army,  or  five 
years'  full  pay,  as  an  equivalent ;  to  use  their  utmost  endeavors  that  the 
vacant  lands  in  the  United  States  might  be  ceded  and  appropriated  for 
the  general  benefit  of  the  United  States.  They  recommended  to  them 
to  use  their  influence  to  obtain  an  instruction  from  the  General  Assem- 
bly to  the  Connecticut  delegation  in  Congress  against  sending  embas- 
sadors to  the  courts  of  Europe  ;  it  being  an  expense,  which  in  the  ex- 
isting circumstances,  they  deemed  unnecessary  and  insupportable  ;  and 
finally  the  gentlemen  were  instructed  to  exert  themselves,  that  placemen 
and  pensioners  and  every  other  superfluous  officer  of  state  should  be 
discontinued  and  removed. 

The  proposed  convention  met  in  Middletown  on  the  3d  day  of  Sep- 
tember, but  a  majority  of  the  towns  not  being  represented,  they  ad- 
journed to  meet  again  on  the  30th  of  the  month.  In  their  proceedings, 
they  recommended  to  the  freemen  to  instruct  their  representatives, 


320  HISTORY    OF    POLITICAL    PARTIES  ** 

early  to  set  on  foot,  at  the  next  session  of  the  Assembly,  a  candid  and 
thorough  inquiry  into  the  extent  of  the  powers  of  Congress  ;  and  if  it 
should  be  found  that  Congress,  in  granting  the  commutation  to  the  offi- 
cers, had  exceeded  their  powers,  then  the  most  effectual  constitutional 
means  were  to  be  used  to  relieve  the  people  from  that  burden. 

In  this  convention  an  attempt  was  made  to  effect  an  entire  change  in 
the  council  or  senate  of  the  state ;  all  the  members  who  had  assisted  in 
conducting  the  country  through  the  war  were  to  be  displaced  ;  a  nomi- 
nation of  other  men  was  made ;  but  the  printers  in  Connecticut  decli- 
ning to  print  it,  it  was  sent  to  New  York,  printed  and  privately  circu- 
lated. 

To  aid  the  attempt  to  change  the  members  of  the  council,  the  most 
ridiculous  tales  were  circulated  to  render  them  odious.  One  story,  aim- 
ed particularly  at  the  Hon.  Oliver  Wolcott  of  Litchfield,  the  father  of 
the  late  Gov.  Wolcott,  was  propagated  with  great  industry  and  no  little 
success  in  Litchfield  County  ;  viz.  that  this  gentleman  had  said,  "  we 
shall  never  have  good  times,  till  a  poor  man  is  obliged  to  live  on  sheep's 
head  and  pluck."  This  ridiculous  falsehood  was  so  far  believed,  in  that 
county,  that  Mr.  Wolcott  came  near  to  lose  his  election  to  the  next  le- 
gislature. The  same  or  a  similar  story  was  circulated  respecting  the 
Huntington  family  in  Norwich.  This  miserable  artifice  however  did 
not  succeed,  and  the  former  councilors  were  re-elected. 

At  the  second  meeting  of  the  convention  at  Middletown  on  the  30th 
of  September,  about  fifty  towns  were  represented,  which,  at  that  time, 
were  a  majority  of  the  towns  in  the  state.  Nothing  however  of  impor- 
tance was  done,  except  to  address  a  petition  or  remonstrance  to  the 
General  Assembly  on  the  subject  of  the  commutation.  They  adjourned 
to  meet  again  on  the  16th  of  December  following. 

At  the  meeting  in  December,  the  convention  issued  a  recommenda- 
tion to  the  people  of  the  state  to  peruse  a  pamphlet  published  by  Judge 
Burke  of  South  Carolina,  against  the  establishment  of  the  society  of  the 
Cincinnati,  by  the  officers  of  the  late  army.  This  society  was  consid- 
ered by  many  persons  as  the  germ  of  an  order  of  nobility  ;  and  so  vio- 
lent was  the  popular  jealousy  respecting  it,  that  a  general  meeting  of 
the  society  was  afterward  held  in  Philadelphia,  in  which  Gen.  Washing- 
ton presided,  and  the  more  objectionable  articles  of  their  constitution 
were  expunged. 

This  convention  adjourned  to  meet  at  the  same  place  on  the  third 
Tuesday  of  March  then  next.  They  met  accordingly  on  the  16th  of 
the  month  and  framed  an  address  to  the  good  people  of  Connecticut,  in 
which  they  urged  their  objections  to  the  resolve  of  Congress,  granting 
extra  pay  to  the  officers,  and  also  against  the  society  of  the  Cincinnati. 
In  the  closing  paragraph,  the  convention  stated  that  as  the  Cincinnati  had 
adjourned  to  meet  in  July  then  next,  they  thought  best  to  adjourn  the 
convention  till  August ;  but  they  never  afterward  assembled.  The  able 
discussions  of  the  subject,  during  the  winter  of  1783-4,  had  convinced 
a  majority  of  citizens  that  the  resolve  of  Congress  was  expedient,  and 
that  opposition  to  the  measure  was  wrong,  and  would  be  ineffectual. 
At  the  election  in  April,  a  large  majority  of  the  towns  elected  represen- 
tatives who  supported  the  measures  of  Congress ;  and  at  the  session  of 
the  Assembly  in  May  following,  an  act  was  passed  granting  power  to 


IN   THE   UNITED   STATES.  32l" 

Congress  to  lay  an  impost  of  five  per  cent,  on  imported  goods,  for  the 
purpose  of  raising  a  revenue. 

Thus  ended  this  formidable  opposition  to  the  acts  of  Congress,  which, 
for  several  months,  threatened  a  revolution  or  entire  change  of  rulers 
in  this  state.* 

This  opposition  to  the  measures  of  Congress  gave  rise  to  the  demo- 
cratic party  in  Connecticut.  It  proceeded  from  honest  motives,  an  ex- 
treme jealousy  of  power  in  the  hands  of  rulers ;  a  jealousy  which  had 
been  manifested  by  the  colonists  from  the  first  settlements  in  America ; 
a  jealousy  which  had  resisted  all  the  efforts  of  the  British  government 
to  bring  New  England  under  a  general  governor,  to  be  appointed  by 
the  crown ;  a  jealousy  which  had  been  fanned  into  a  flame  by  the 
stamp  act,  and  which  finally  determined  the  colonists  to  resist  the  Brit- 
ish claims  by  force. 

The  party  thus  formed  on  the  question  of  the  right  of  Congress  to 
grant  extra  pay  to  the  officers,  constituted  about  one  third  or  one  fourth 
of  the  citizens.  On  the  question  of  ratifying  the  constitution  in  1788, 
the  votes  of  the  convention  were  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  in  the 
affirmative,  and  forty  in  the  negative.  And  this  was  nearly  the  pro- 
portion for  several  years,  till  new  questions  arose  in  the  administration 
of  the  government  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 

And  in  this  place  I  will  take  the  liberty  to  correct  a  common  error  in 
popular  opinion,  in  regard  to  the  parties  at  the  time  the  constitution  was 
formed.  It  is  well  known  that  the  friends  and  supporters  of  the  ratifi- 
cation were  denominated  Federalists ;  and  the  opposers  anti-federalists. 
It  has  often  been  alledged,  in  recent  times,  that  the  federalists  were  in 
favor  of  a  consolidation  of  the  several  states,  which  should  reduce 
them  to  the  condition  of  mere  corporations  under  the  general  govern- 
ment. But  this  is  a  mistake  ;  the  federalists  were  never  the  advocates 
of  a  consolidation ;  they  were  opposed  to  it.  The  mistake  arose  from 
the  fact  that  the  opposers  of  the  ratification  were  apprehensive  that  the 

*  It  may  be  remarked,  that  of  the  discontents  among  the  people  on  account  of 
this  resolve  of  Congress,  we  have  no  history.  The  subject  of  the  convention  in 
Connecticut  is  not  mentioned  in  Marshall's  History  of  the  Life  of  Washington  ;  it 
is  not  mentioned  in  most  of  the  histories  for  schools  now  used,  and  except  a  brief 
account  in  my  History  of  the  United  States,  this  portion  of  the  history  of  Connecti- 
cut is  all  a  blank  to  the  present  generation. 

The  popular  discontents  respecting  the  commutation  of  half  pay,  appeared  in 
Massachusetts.  In  February,  1784,  a  committee  of  the  towns  of  Wrentham  and 
Medway,  with  the  advice  of  the  selectmen  of  the  towns  of  Franklin  and  Billing- 
ham,  sent  a  letter  to  the  selectmen  of  Boston,  and  to  all  the  towns  in  the  county 
o^  Suffolk,  to  take  into  consideration  the  commutation,  and  also  the  act  of  Massa- 
chusetts, granting  an  impost  to  raise  a  revenue  to  Congress,  without  proper  restric- 
tions. The  committee  further  voted  to  desire  the  several  towns  in  Suffolk,  to 
choose  a  delegate  or  delegates,  to  meet  at  the  house  of  Mrs.  Woodward,  innholder 
in  Dedham,  on  the  third  Wednesday  in  March,  to  take  into  consideration  these 
subjects  and  advise  to  some  measures  for  the  redress  of  grievances. 

A  town  meeting  was  held  in  Boston;  the  letter  from  the  committee  of  Wrent- 
ham and  Medway  was  laid  before  the  meeting,  and  the  subjects  debated.  On 
the  15th  day  of  March,  the  town,  by  their  clerk,  William  Cooper,  returned  an  an- 
swer, expressing  their  disapprobation  of  the  county  meeting  proposed,  and  of  any 
attempt  to  oppose  the  resolves  of  Congress.  This  letter,  it  is  believed,  prevented 
any  further  proceedings  of  towns  on  this  subject. 

These  letters  are  published  at  large  in  the  Connecticut  Courant  of  March  30, 
1784. 

41 


322  HISTORY    OF    POLITICAL   PARTIES 

powers  vested  in  Congress  were  too  extensive,  and  that  the  effect  would 
be  to  destroy  the  sovereignty  of  the  states,  and  result  in  a  consolidation. 
But  at  the  time  when  the  subject  of  ratification  was  under  discussion, 
the  anti-federal  or  democratic  part  of  our  citizens  never  charged  the 
federalists  with  the  design  to  effect  a  consolidation.  This  is  a  modern 
calumny. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  democratic  party,  with  few  or  no  ex- 
ceptions, opposed  the  ratification  of  the  constitution ;  and  beyond  a 
question,  had  that  opposition  succeeded,  anarchy  or  civil  war  would 
have  been  the  consequence.  The  federalists  made  the  frame  of  gov- 
ernment, and  with  immense  efforts,  procured  it  to  be  ratified,  in  oppo- 
sition to  nearly  one  half  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  headed 
by  some  of  the  ablest  men  in  the  Union. 

During  the  first  session  of  Congress,  the  same  parties  existed,  and 
arranged  themselves  on  different  sides  of  several  important  questions 
which  occupied  the  deliberations  of  that  body.  The  democratic  party 
opposed  the  funding  of  the  public  debt  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
assumption  of  the  state  debts ;  those  important  measures  which  were 
necessary  to  do  justice  to  the  creditors,  and  revive  the  credit  and  the 
languishing  commerce  of  the  United  States.  The  genius  of  Hamilton, 
and  the  wisdom  and  firmness  of  Washington  and  his  federal  supporters, 
overcame  the  opposition ;  the  public  debts  were  funded,  courts  were 
established,  and  the  government  in  all  its  departments  was  organized. 

One  of  the  objections  to  the  funding  of  the  debts,  arose  from  the  ap- 
prehension that  the  United  States  would  contract  a  permanent  debt,  like 
that  which  oppresses  the  British  nation.  Mr.  Jefferson's  mind  was  fill- 
ed with  this  terrific  phantom.  It  is  strange  that  a  single  glance  at  the 
immense  resources  of  this  country,  should  not  have  dissipated  all  such 
apprehensions. 

Another  objection  to  the  funding  of  the  public  debts,  arose  from  the 
depreciated  value  of  the  evidences  of  those  debts,  which  had  sunk  to 
one-eighth  of  the  nominal  sum,  and  to  a  great  extent,  had  been  sold  at 
that  value.  It  was  considered  unjust  that  the  purchasers  of  those  secu- 
rities, who  had  given  for  them  only  one-eighth  of  their  original  value, 
should  have  them  funded  at  par ;  and  Mr.  Madison  introduced  into  the 
House  of  Representatives  a  proposition  for  a  discrimination,  which 
should  give  to  the  original  holders  of  the  securities  a  part  of  their  origi- 
nal value.     This  project  was  defeated. 

It  may  be  here  remarked  how  erroneously  the  opposers  of  the  con- 
stitution reasoned  in  regard  to  its  operation  and  effects.  One  of  the 
strongest  objections  to  the  constitution,  proceeded  from  an  apprehension 
that  the  federal  government  would  reduce  the  states  to  mere  corpora- 
tions ;  in  other  words,  would  produce  a  consolidation.  Events  have 
shown  that  the  danger  is  on  the  other  side,  and  that  we  have  most  cause 
of  fear  that  the  states  will  be  too  strong  for  the  federal  government. 

Soon  after  the  government  was  organized,  and  business  began  to  be 
prosperous,  a  new  cause  of  party  contention  arose  from  an  effort  of 
Mr.  Jefferson  and  his  friends  to  divert  the  trade  of  this  country  from 
Great  Britain  to  France.  The  pretext  for  this  change  was  the  restric- 
tions which  Great  Britain  laid  on  the  commerce  of  this  country.  To 
prove  that  Great  Britain  imposed  higher  duties  on  our  exports  to  that 


IN   THE   UNITED   STATES.  3^ 

Country  and  her  colonies,  and  subjected  our  trade  to  more  severe  re- 
strictions than  France  laid  upon  our  commerce  to  that  kingdom  and  her 
colonies,  Mr.  Jefferson  sent  to  Congress  a  lengthy  report  on  the  privi- 
leges and  restrictions  of  our  trade  in  the  several  countries, of  Europe. 
Soon  after  this  report,  Mr.  Madison  introduced  into  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives a  series  of  resolutions,  adapted  to  carry  into  effect  the  pur- 
pose of  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  encourage  a  trade  with  France,  in  prefer- 
ence to  that  with  Great  Britain.  These  resolutions  occasioned  anima- 
ted debates,  but  they  were  ultimately  negatived. 

In  these  efforts  of  Mr.  Jefferson  and  his  friends  to  change  the  course 
of  our  trade,  it  was  easy  to  discover  the  strong  predilection  of  that  party 
for  a  connection  with  France.  Popular  feeling  also  was  on  the  side  of 
France.  The  people  of  this  country  had  not  forgotten  their  sufferings 
from  the  British  armies,  and  particularly  the  cruelties  practiced  on 
American  prisoners,  during  the  Revolution.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
assistance  rendered  to  the  United  States  by  France,  in  support  of  inde- 
pendence, had  conciliated  the  favor  and  friendship  of  our  citizens  for 
that  country.  In  addition  to  these  circumstances,  Mr.  Jefferson's  long 
residence  in  France,  in  the  character  of  American  minister,  and  the 
coincidence  of  his  principles  with  those  of  the  most  eminent  French 
authors  and  philosophers,  had  produced  in  him  a  strong  predilection  for 
that  nation  ;  while  he  .entertained  the  bitterest  enmity  to  Great  Britain. 
Of  this  he  has  left  abundant  evidence  in  his  published  letters. 

Through  the  instrumentality  of  these  means,  the  democratic  party 
became,  in  some  measure,  identified  with  the  partisans  of  France. 
Subsequent  events  strengthened  this  union. 

It  is  well  known  that  after  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Great  Britain  in 
1783,  the  government  of  that  country  refused  to  deliver,  to  the  United 
States,  the  forts  on  our  northern  frontier,  until  the  British  merchants 
had  received  payment  of  the  debts  due  to  them  from  our  citizens,  for 
goods  sold  to  them  before  the  Revolution.  At  the  same  time,  citizens 
of  the  southern  states  demanded,  from  the  British  government,  com- 
pensation for  the  slaves  which  the  British  armies  had  carried  away  at 
the  close  of  the  war.  The  controversy  between  the  two  governments, 
on  these  subjects,  was  violent,  obstinate,  and  extremely  embarrassing 
to  the  President.  This  controversy  was  adjusted  by  the  treaty  nego- 
tiated by  Mr.  Jay.  The  British  government  agreed  to  pay  for  the 
slaves,  and  the  United  States  stipulated  to  pay  the  debts  due  from  our 
citizens  to  British  merchants. 

But  new  causes  of  controversy  arose.     The  revolution  in  France, 

-^hich  had  just  put  an  end  to  the  monarchy,  had  alarmed   the   kings  of 

the  neighboring  nations,  and   they  combined  to  check  the   progress  of 

French  principles  ;  or  at  least  to  prevent  them   from   overturning  their 

^thrones.     One  of  the   methods  adopted  by  Great  Britain  to  distress 

France,  was  to  prevent  neutral  nations  from  supplying  that  country 

with   provisions  for  food,  as  well  as  munitions   of  war.     The   British 

statesmen  knew  the   predilection  of  American  citizens  for  France,  and 

for  a  republican  government,  which  they  supposed  the  French  would 

>  establish.     It  was  therefore  the  policy  of  Great  Britain  to  prevent  the 

i  United  States  from  joining  France  in  her  contest  with  the  combined 

powers.     This  was  probably  one  motive  which  induced  the  British  gov- 


324  HISTORY    OF    POLITICAL    PARTIES 

ernment  to  issue  an  order  of  council,  directing  their  ships  to  capture 
American  vessels,  and  conduct  them  into  her  ports  for  adjudication. 
In  consequence  of  this  order,  the  ocean  was  swept  of  American  ves- 
sels. These  captures  raised  a  spirit  of  universal  indignation  in  the 
United  States,  and  very  much  strengthened  the  democratic  party. 

Other  causes  contributed  to  the  same  effect.  After  the  death  of  the 
King  of  France,  and  the  commencement  of  the  republican  form  of 
government,  the  French  rulers  began  to  entertain  the  project  of  revo- 
lutionizing Europe  by  overthrowing  monarchies.  This  project  they 
supposed  to  be  so  congenial  to  the  opinions  of  the  Americans,  that  they 
expected  our  government  would  readily  unite  with  France,  in  resisting 
the  combination  of  kings  to  defeat  the  purpose.  With  a  view  to  bring 
the  United  States  into  alliance  with  France,  Mr.  Genet  was  dispatched, 
as  minister  to  this  country,  authorized  to  induce  our  government  to  join 
France  in  defending  herself  against  the  combined  powers,  and  in  ex- 
tending republican  principles  and  forms  of  government. 

Mr.  Genet  landed  at  Charleston,  in  South  Carolina,  and  without  pre- 
senting his  credentials  to  the  President,  he  proceeded  to  constitute 
French  consuls  to  be  judges  of  admiralty,  with  authority  to  condemn 
British  vessels  taken  as  prizes,  and  sent  into  port  by  French  privateers 
fitted  out  in  American  harbors.  He  also  commissioned  men  to  be  mil- 
ita,ry  officers  for  raising  troops  to  invade  the  Spanish  possessions  on  our 
southern  border.  On  his  way  to  the  north,  he  promoted  the  formation 
of  democratic  societies  to  support  him  in  attempts  to  draw  this  country 
into  an  alliance  with  France.  These  societies  held  meetings,  and 
passed  violent  resolutions  in  favor  of  French  principles.  The  demo- 
cratic society  in  Kentucky  assumed  a  high  tone  in  demanding  the  free 
right  to  enter  and  navigate  the  Mississippi,  the  mouth  of  which  was 
within  the  Spanish  territories.  They  charged  our  government  with 
neglect  of  their  interests  in  not  procuring  a  free  navigation  of  that  river. 
Their  claim  to  such  freedom  was  reasonable,  but  the  right  to  it  was  to 
be  obtained  by  negotiation,  and  their  charges  against  the  executive  of 
the  United  States  of  neglecting  to  obtain  it  were  not  to  be  justified. 

The  conduct  of  the  French  minister  gave  great  offense  to  our  citizens 
and  to  the  executive.  He  evidently  supposed  that  his  influence,  favored 
by  a  predilection  of  our  citizens  for  a  republican  form  of  government, 
and  supported  by  the  democratic  societies,  was  sufficient  to  control  the 
measures  of  our  government.  Hence  when  President  Washington  is- 
sued a  proclamation  recommending  neutrality,  and  manifested  a  firm 
determination  to  oppose  the  designs  of  France,  Mr.  Genet  appealed  to 
the  people.  This  bold  and  rash  declaration  ruined  his  cause.  The 
President  was  not  a  man  to  surrender  his  authority  to  a  foreign  minister, 
and  he  demanded  his  recall. 

In  the  midst  of  the  most  perplexing  difficulties,  with  a  popular  French 
minister  intriguing  to  draw  this  country  into  an  alliance  with  France,  in 
her  war  with  the  combined  powers,  and  boldly  usurping  rights  of  sove- 
reignty in  the  United  States  ;  compelled  to  struggle  with  the  opposition 
of  some  of  his  cabinet,  and  with  many  popular  leaders  of  the  demo- 
cratic party,  acting  in  concert  with  the  French  minister,  President 
Washington  stood  as  firm  as  a  rock ;  and  to  his  popularity  chiefly  was 
this  country  indebted  for  its  escape  from  a  connection  with  France, 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  325 

which  would  have  involved  the  fate  of  this  country  with  hers,  in  the 
most  obstinate  contest  ever  witnessed  in  Europe. 

But  the  democratic  party  in  this  country  had  now  become  identified 
with  the  French  partisans  in  the  United  States.  To  show  how  inti- 
mately these  parties  were  united  in  views,  and  how  much  dependence 
the  French  had  on  the  leaders  of  the  democratic  party  in  this  country, 
I  will  relate  an  anecdote. 

In  the  month  of  August,  1793, 1  was  in  New  York  at  the  house  of 
a  Mr.  Bradley  in  Maiden  Lane,  where  Mr.  Genet  and  his  suit  were 
lodging.  While  sitting  at  dinner,  I  related  the  news  which  had  just 
been  received,  that  a  British  vessel  had  arrived  in  the  harbor  of  Boston, 
a  prize  to  a  French  privateer,  and  that  the  marshal  of  the  district  had 
taken  possession  of  the  vessel,  by  order  of  our  government,  to  prevent 
her  from  being  condemned  by  the  French  consular  court  of  admiralty. 
On  hearing  this  fact,  Mr.  Paschal,  a  secretary  of  Mr.  Genet,  imme- 
diately remarked  that  General  Washington  was  making  war  on  the 
French  nation.  He  spoke  in  French,  not  knowing  that  any  person  at 
table,  except  his  countrymen,  understood  him.  Mr.  Genet  immediately 
said  that  our  government  was  bringing  this  country  back  under  the 
power  of  Great  Britain.  This  remark  excited  my  spirit  to  reply 
bluntly,  that  our  government  could  no  more  bring  us  again  under  the 
dominion  of  Great  Britain,  than  they  could  remove  Catskill  mountains, 
or  words  to  that  effect.  I  asked  him  if  he  thought  Gen.  Washington, 
Mr.  Jefferson,  and  Mr.  Hamilton  were  fools.  Mr.  Genet  replied  in- 
stantly, "  Mr.  Jefferson  is  no  fool." 

I  informed  Mr.  Wolcott,  controller  of  the  treasury,  of  this  conversa- 
tion, and  he,  after  advising  with  some  members  of  the  cabinet,  wrote 
to  me,  requesting  me  to  send  him  an  affidavit  of  the  facts.  This  was 
done,  and  the  affidavit  is  among  the  papers  of  the  late  Governor  Wol- 
cott. 

The  policy  of  President  Washington  was  pacific ;  he  knew  the  in- 
terests of  his  country  required  the  continuance  of  peace,  and  to  this 
object  he  devoted  all  his  authority,  and  directed  all  his  measures.  To 
effect  an  adjustment  of  controversies  with  Great  Britain,  he  nominated 
Mr.  Jay,  as  special  envoy  to  negotiate  a  treaty  with  the  government  of 
that  kingdom,  and  this  embassy  was  successful.  The  great  questions 
respecting  the  surrender  of  the  northern  forts  by  Great  Britain,  and  the 
claims  of  British  merchants  for  debts  due  from  our  citizens,  were  settled. 

This  event  frustrated  the  project  and  hopes  of  the  democratic  party 
in  this  country,  of  forming  an  alliance  with  France  in  her  revolutionary 
struggle.  Their  disappointment  was  manifested  by  continued  ebulli- 
tions of  the  bitterest  opposition  to  Mr.  Jay's  treaty.*  Never  was  the 
rancor  of  party  spirit  exhibited  with  more  force,  than  in  the  writings 
which  filled  the  opposition  prints  on  that  occasion.  A  specimen  of  that 
rancor  is  furnished  by  a  paragraph  published  in  Davis's  Gazette,  in 
Richmond,  Virginia.     It  was  in  these  words  : — 

"  Notice  is  hereby  given,  that  in  case  the  treaty  entered  into  by  that 
d — d  arch  traitor,  J — n  J — y,  with  the  British  tyrant,  should  be  ratified, 

*  "  I  join  with  you  in  thinking  the  treaty  an  execrable  thing." — Jefferson's  Let- 
ter to  E.  RiUledge,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  317. 


kt 


326  HISTORY    OF    POLITICAL    PARTIES 

a  petition  will  be  presented  to  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  at 
their  next  session,  praying  that  the  said  state  may  recede  from  the  Un- 
ion, and  be  left  under  the  government  and  protection  of  one  hundred 
thousand  free  and  independent  Virginians." 

"  P.  S.  As  it  is  the  wish  of  the  people  of  the  said  state  to  enter  into 
a  treaty  of  amity,  and  commerce,  and  navigation,  with  any  other  state 
or  states  of  the  present  Union,  who  are  averse  to  returning  again  under 
the  galling  yoke  of  Great  Britain,  the  printers  of  the  (at  present)  United 
States  are  requested  to  publish  the  above  notification." 

Notwithstanding  the  violent  opposition  made  to  this  treaty  by  the  de- 
mocratic party,  and  by  many  of  the  federal  party,  President  Washing- 
ton, after  long  deliberation,  set  his  signature  to  its  ratification.  The 
event  proved  how  erroneous  was  popular  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
merits  of  that  treaty ;  for  in  its  operation,  it  proved  to  be  highly  favor- 
able to  the  commercial  interests  of  this  country,  and  the  expiration  of 
certain  articles  at  the  end  of  ten  years,  was  deeply  regretted. 

But  the  adjustment  of  our  controversy  with  Great  Britain  did  not  put 
an  end  to  our  troubles.  The  inveterate  contest  between  France  and 
the  combined  powers  continued,  with  a  bitterness  that  set  at  defiance 
all  the  established  rules  of  international  law  by  which  the  rights  of 
neutral  nations  had  been  protected.  Great  Britain,  for  the  purpose  of 
crippling  France,  issued  orders  for  blockading  French  ports  ;  and  in 
retaliation,  the  French  government  issued  orders  for  blockading  British 
ports.  Thus  our  commerce  was  subjected  to  interruption  by  the  cruis- 
ers of  both  nations  ;  our  ships  were  taken  and  condemned  by  both,  and 
scarcely  to  this  day  have  our  merchants  been  indemnified  for  their 
losses. 

Another  cause  of  continual  irritation,  was  the  orders  of  the  British 
government  for  impressing  seamen  on  board  of  American  ships.  These 
orders  did  not  extend  to  the  impressment  of  native  Americans,  but  of 
British  born  subjects,  in  American  service.  By  the  laws  or  established 
usages  of  Great  Britain,  a  British  subject  can  not  alienate  his  allegiance 
to  the  British  crown.  Hence  naturalization  of  subjects  in  the  United 
States  gives  no  protection  to  British  subjects  in  American  ships.  In 
executing  these  orders,  it  sometimes  happened  that  native  Americans 
were  impressed  from  our  ships.  This  was  justly  considered  an  outra- 
geous injury ;  and  to  compel  Great  Britain  to  relinquish  this  practice, 
was  a  principal  reason  for  declaring  war  against  that  nation  in  1812. 

During  the  whole  period  of  President  Washington's  administration, 
and  amid  the  most  perplexing  difficulties,  that  great  man  maintained 
the  most  rigid  impartiality  toward  the  belligerent  nations ;  his  integrity, 
firmness,  justice,  and  love  of  his  country,  remained  unshaken.  But 
his  prudence  could  not  shield  him  from  incessant  abusive  attacks  in  the 
democratic  papers.  He  was  charged  with  partiality  to  Great  Britain, 
and  his  cabinet  with  enmity  to  republican  principles.  He  bore  the  ca- 
lumnious charges  with  astonishing  magnanimity  ;  but  his  sensibility  was 
at  times  so  wounded  that  he  vented  complaints.  "  I  wonder,"  said  he, 
"  why  I  am  so  much  abused ;  I  do  as  well  as  I  can." 

We  have  a  specimen  of  the  charges  of  the  democratic  party  against 
President  Washington's  administration,"  in  a  letter  of  Mr.  Jefferson  to 
his  Italian  friend,  Mazzei,  who  had  resided  some  time  in  this  country. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  327 

The  letter  was  written  in  April,  1796,  some  months  after  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  treaty  negotiated  by  Mr.  Jay.  The  copy  from  which  was 
made  the  first  translation  published  in  this  country,  was  a  version  in 
French,  printed  in  the  Moniteur  of  January  15,  1797,  to  which  were 
attached  severe  animadversions  on  the  conduct  of  our  government  to- 
ward France,  charging  it  with  the  basest  ingratitude.  The  paper  con- 
taining this  letter  was  put  into  my  hands  in  April,  1797,  by  Mr.  Epaph- 
ras  Jones  of  Hartford,  who  had  just  returned  from  France.  I  was  then 
the  editor  of  two  papers  in  New  York — the  Minerva,  afterward  the 
Commercial  Advertiser,  and  the  Herald,  afterward  the  Spectator.  The 
letter  of  Mazzei  attracting  my  attention,  I  translated  it  and  published  it 
in  my  papers. 

On  the  appearance  of  this  letter  in  Philadelphia,  it  attracted  the  no- 
tice of  the  public,  and  particularly  of  the  members  of  the  cabinet. 
Mr.  Jefferson  did  not  deny  the  authenticity  of  the  letter,  but  he  alledg- 
ed  that  it  had  been  altered  or  incorrectly  translated.  On  comparing 
the  published  copy  with  that  which  has  been  since  published  in  the  cor- 
respondence of  Mr.  Jefferson  with  his  friends,  (Vol.  Ill,  p.  327,)  it  ap- 
pears that  there  is  no  material  difference  except  in  a  misprint  of  the 
word  form  instead  oi  forms.  This  misprint  would  make  the  writer, 
Mr.  Jefferson,  charge  his  political  opposers  with  attempting  to  give  us 
iheform  of  the  British  government,  instead  of  \he  forms  or  ceremonies 
of  the  British  court,  which  he  alledged  to  be  his  meaning.  The  fact  of 
Mr.  Jefferson's  denial  of  the  correctness  of  the  published  copy,  induced 
Col.  Pickering  to  write  to  me- in  New  York,  requesting  me  to  send  to 
him  the  French  original.  I  complied  with  this  request,  and  the  letter 
in  the  original,  with  a  translation,  was  published  in  the  Gazette  of  the 
United  States.  The  French  paper,  the  Moniteur,  was  then  returned  to 
me,  and  as  I  was  under  an  obligation  to  deliver  it  to  Mr.  Jones,  I  had 
the  precaution  to  make  a  correct  copy  of  the  original  French,  and  to 
procure  it  to  be  attested,  as  a  true  copy,  by  Mr.  afterward  Chief  Jus- 
tice Kent.  This  copy  is  now  in  my  possession,  and  I  will  give  it  in 
the  original  and  in  plain  English. 

Florence,  le  ler  Janvier. 
Lettre  de  M.  Jeferson,  ci-devant  Ministre  des  Eiats  Unis  en  France^  et 
Secretaire  au  department  des  affaires  etrangeres,  a  un  citoyen  de 
Virginie. 

Cette  lettre  litteralment  traduite,  est  addressee  a  M.  Mazzei,  auteur 
des  Recherches  Historiques  et  Politiques  sur  les  Etats  Unis  d'Amerique, 
demeurant  en  Toscane. 

"  Notre  etat  politique  a  prodigieusement  change,  depuis  que  vous 
nous  avez  quitte.  Au  lieu  de  ce  noble  amour  de  la  liberte  et  de  ce 
gouvernement  republicain,  qui  nous  ont  fait  passer  triomphans  a  travers 
les  dangers  de  la  guerre,  un  parti  Anglican-monarchico-aristocratique 
s'est  eleve.  Son  object  avoue  est  de  nous  imposer  la  substance,  comma 
il  nous  a  deja  donne  les  formes  de  gouvernement  Britannique  ;  cepend- 
ant  le  corps  principal  de  nos  citoyens  reste  fidele  aux  principes  repub- 
licains.  Tous  les  proprietaires  foncieres  sont  pour  ces  principes,  ainsi 
qu'une  grande  masse  d'hommes  a  talens.  Nous  avons  contre  nous  re- 
publicains  le  pouvoir  executif,  le  pouvoir  judiciaire,  deux  des  trois 


328  HISTORY    OF    POLITICAL   PARTIES 

branches  de  la  legislature,  tous  les  officiers  du  gouvernement,  tous  ceux 
qui  aspirant  a  I'etre,  tous  les  hommes  timides  qui  preferent  le  calme  du 
despotisme  a  la  mer  orageuse  de  la  liberie,  les  marchands  Bretons,  et 
les  Americaines  qui  trafiquent  avee  des  capitaux  Bretons,  les  specula- 
teurs,  les  gens  intercsses  dans  la  banque  et  dans  les  fonds  publics,  etab- 
lissements  inventes  dans  des  vues  de  corruption,  et  pour  nous  assimuler 
au  modele  Britannique  dans  ses  parties  pourries. 

"  Je  vous  donnerais  la  fievre,  si  je  vous  nommais  les  apostats  qui  ont 
embrasse  ces  heresies,  des  hommes  qui  etaient  des  Solomons  dans  le 
conseil,  et  des  Samsons  dans  les  combats,  mais  dont  la  chevelure  a  ete 
coupee  par  la  catin  Angleterre. 

"  On  voudrait  nous  ravir  cette  liberte  que  nous  avons  gagnee  par  tant 
de  travaux  et  de  dangers.  Mais  nous  la  conserverons  ;  notre  masse  de 
poids  et  de  richesse  est  trop  grand  pour  que  nous  ayons  a  craindre  qu'on 
tente  d'employer  la  force  centre  nous.  II  suffit  que  nous  nous  reveil- 
lions,  et  que  nous  rompions  les  liens  lilliputiens  dont  il  nous  ont  garottes 
pendant  le  premier  sommeil  qui  a  succede  a  nos  travaux.  II  suffit  que 
nous  arretions  les  progress  de  ce  systeme  d'ingratitude  et  injustice  en- 
vers  la  France,  de  que  on  voudrait  nous  aliener  pour  nous  rendre  a  la 
influence  Britannique,  etc." 

A  true  copy  from  a  French  paper,  entitled  "  Gazette  Nationale,  ou 
le  Moniteur  Universel,"  6  Pluviose,  Pan  5  de  Republique. 

James  Kent. 

New  York,  May  22, 1797. 

Florence,  6th  of  January. 
Letter  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  formerly  Minister  of  the  United  States  in 

France,  and  Secretary  in  the  department  of  foreign  affairs,  to  a 

citizen  of  Virginia. 

This  letter,  literally  translated,  is  addressed  to  Mr.  Mazzei,  author  of 
Historical  and  Political  Researches  on  the  United  States  of  America, 
resident  in  Tuscany. 

"  Our  political  state  has  been  prodigiously  altered  since  you  have 
left  us.  Instead  of  that  noble  love  of  liberty  and  of  republican  gov- 
ernment, which  enabled  us  to  pass  triumphantly  through  the  dangers  of 
the  war,  an  Anglican,  monarchical,  aristocratical  party  has  arisen. 
Their  avowed  object  is  to  impose  on  us  the  substance,  as  they  have 
already  given  us  the  forms  of  the  British  government.  Nevertheless, 
the  principal  body  of  our  citizens  remains  faithful  to  republican  princi- 
ples. All  our  landholders  are  in  favor  of  those  principles ;  so  also  the 
great  mass  of  men  of  talents.  We  republicans  have  against  us  the 
executive  power,  the  judiciary  power,  two  of  the  three  branches  of  the 
legislature  ;  all  the  officers  of  the  government ;  all  those  who  aspire  to 
offices ;  all  timid  men  who  prefer  the  calm  of  despotism  to  the  stormy 
sea  of  liberty ;  the  British  merchants  and  Americans  who  trade  with 
British  capitals ;  the  speculators,  the  people  who  are  interested  in  the 
banks  and  in  the  public  funds ;  establishments  invented  for  the  purpose 
of  corruption,  and  to  assimilate  us  to  the  British  model  in  its  corrupt 
parts. 

"  I  should  give  you  a  fever,  if  I  should  name  to  you  the  apostates 
who  have  embraced  these  heresies,  the  men  who  were  Solomons  in 


,    IN    THE   UNITED    STATES.  329 

council,  and  Samsons  in  combat,  but  whose  locks  have  been  shorn  by 
the  harlot  England. 

"  These  men  would  ravish  from  us  that  liberty  which  we  gained  by 
so  many  labors  and  dangers.  But  we  shall  preserve  it ;  our  mass  of 
weight  and  of  wealth  is  too  great  to  suffer  us  to  fear  that  our  opposers 
will  employ  force  against  us.  It  is  enough  that  we  are  awake,  and  that 
we  shall  break  the  lilliputian  ties  with  which  they  have  bound  us, 
during  the  first  slumber  which  succeeded  our  toils.  It  is  sufficient  that 
we  arrest  the  progress  of  that  system  of  ingratitude  and  injustice  to- 
ward France,  from  which  they  would  alienate  us,  to  subject  us  to  Brit- 
ish influence,  etc." 

To  this  letter  were  subjoined  the  following  remarks  in  the  Moniteur. 

["  This  interesting  letter  from  one  of  the  most  virtuous  and  enlight- 
ened citizens  of  the  United  States,  explains  the  conduct  of  the  Ameri- 
cans in  regard  to  France.  It  is  certain  that  of  all  the  neutral  and 
friendly  powers,  there  is  none  from  which  France  had  a  right  to  expect 
more  interest  and  succors  than  from  the  United  States.  She  is  their 
true  mother  country,  since  she  has  offered  to  them  their  liberty  and 
independence.  Ungrateful  children,  instead  of  abandoning  her,  they 
ought  to  have  armed  in  her  defense.  But  if  imperious  circumstances 
had  prevented  them  from  openly  declaring  for  the  republic  of  France, 
they  ought  at  least  to  have  made  demonstrations  and  excited  apprehen- 
sions in  England,  that  at  some  moment  or  other  they  should  declare 
themselves.  This  fear  alone  would  have  been  sufficient  to  force  the 
cabinet  of  England  to  make  peace.  It  is  clear  that  a  war  with  the 
United  States  would  strike  a  terrible  blow  at  the  commerce  of  the  Eng- 
lish, would  give  them  uneasiness  for  the  preservation  of  their  posses- 
sions on  the  American  continent,  and  deprive  them  of  the  means  of 
conquering  the  Dutch  and  French  colonies. 

.  "  Equally  ungrateful  and  impolitic,  the  Congress  hastens  to  encour- 
age the  English,  that  they  might  pursue  in  tranquillity  their  war  of  ex- 
tei'mination  against  France,  and  to  invade  the  colonies  and  the  com- 
merce of  England.  They  sent  to  London  a  minister,  Mr.  Jay,  known 
by  his  attachment  to  England,  and  his  personal  relations  to  Lord  Gren- 
ville,  and  he  concluded  suddenly  a  treaty  of  commerce  which  united 
tliem  with  Great  Britain,  more  than  a  treaty  of  .illiance. 

"  Such  a  treaty,  under  all  the  peculiar  circumstances,  and  by  the 
consequences  which  it  must  produce,  is  an  act  of  hostility  against 
France.  The  French  government  in  short  has  testified  the  resentment 
of  the  French  nation,  by  breaking  off  communication  with  an  ungrateful 
and  faithless  ally,  until  she  shall  return  to  a  more  just  and  benevolent 
conduct.  Justice  and  sound  policy  equally  approve  this  measure  of 
the  French  government.  There  is  no  doubt  it  will  give  rise,  in  the 
United  States,  to  discussions  which  may  afford  a  triumph  to  the  party  of 
good  republicans,  the  friends  of  France. 

"  Some  writers,  in  disapprobation  of  this  wise  and  necessary  meas- 
ure of  the  Directory,  maintain  that  in  the  United  States,  the  French 
have  for  partisans  only  certain  demagogues  who  aim  to  overthrow  the 
existing  government.  But  their  impudent  falsehoods  convince  no  one, 
-and  prove  only  what  is  too  evident,  that  they  use  the  liberty  of  the  press 
to  serve  the  enemies  of  France."]         -.^^-r— ,.vr»r  • 

42      ' 


330  HISTORY    OF    POLITICAL    PARTIES 

The  charges  against  President  Washington  and  his  supporters,  the 
federalists,  so  boldly  affirmed  in  this  letter,  1  knoto  to  be  the  foulest  mis- 
representations that  ever  characterized  political  enmity.  I  was  well 
acquainted  with  the  leading  men  in  the  cabinet  and  in  our  public  coun- 
cils at  that  time  ;  with  several  of  them  I  had  had  an  intimate  acquaint- 
ance for  ten,  twenty  or  thirty  years  ;  and  I  knoio^  as  well  as  one  man 
can  know  the  opinions  of  others,  that  there  was  no  Anglican,  monarch- 
ical, aristocratical  party  among  them  ;  and  that  the  banks  and  the 
public  funds  were  not  contrivances  invented  for  the  purposes  of  cor- 
ruption, and  for  assimilating  us  to  the  British  government  in  its  cor- 
rupt parts.  The  men  who  composed  the  councils  of  the  country,  under 
President  Washington,  were  all  republicans  in  principle,  men  of  the 
firmest  integrity,  and  as  sound  patriots  as  ever  honored  a  free  country. 
The  funding  of  the  public  debts  was  a  measure  dictated  by  a  high 
sense  of  justice  to  the  public  creditors,  and  by  the  soundest  policy,  as 
were  all  the  laws  and  measures  of  the  first  Congress  under  the  present 
constitution.  It  was  this  policy  which,  being  pursued  by  Washington 
and  his  successors,  revived  the  credit  and  the  commerce  of  the  United 
States,  and  gave  them  an  exalted  name  among  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
There  was  not  a  man  in  Washington's  cabinet,  and  I  believe  not  in  the 
federal  party,  who  wished  to  extend  the  measures  of  the  government 
beyond  the  legitimate  limits  of  the  constitution. 

The  charge  of  a  predilection  for  monarchy  among  the  leading  men 
of  the  federal  party,  was  however  continually  repeated  in  the  public 
prints  ;  and  as  this  charge  had  no  small  influence  in  alienating  the 
minds  of  honest  citizens  from  the  administration  of  Washington,  it  de- 
serves a  more  particular  notice. 

The  person  most  generally  charged  with  being  a  monarchist,  was 
Gen.  Hamilton.  This  charge  is  unfounded  ;  that  gentleman  never  ad- 
vocated the  establishment  of  a  monarchy  in  the  United  States.  He 
believed  that  the  mixed  kind  of  government  in  Great  Britain,  formed 
the  best  constitution  that  had  ever  been  devised.  If  that  form  of  gov- 
ernment is  not  the  best  that  men  can  devise,  yet  the  success  of  that 
government  in  raising  the  British  nation  to  power  and  wealth,  and  in 
giving  stability  to  public  measures,  may  well  justify  Mr.  Hamilton's 
opinion. 

But  Mr.  Hamilton  knew  and  declared  that  a  monarchy  could  not  be 
established  in  the  United  States  ;  and  it  is  proof  of  great  ignorance  or 
of  great  hypocrisy,  for  men  of  this  generation,  the  younglings  of  yes- 
terday, to  charge  the  federalists  of  a  former  generation  with  the  design 
to  erect  a  monarchy  in  this  country.  It  was  a  principle  then  acknowl- 
edged, that  a  nation  consisting  mostly  of  independent  landholders  would 
never  consent  to  yield  the  powers  of  government  to  a  single  man.  Mr. 
Hamilton,  well  versed  in  the  history  of  republics,  and  foreseeing  evils 
like  those  which  this  country  has  experienced,  and  is  now  suffering, 
wished  to  incorporate  into  the  constitution,  the  most  effectual  guards 
against  corruption  and  factions.  But  the  highest  toned  propositions 
which  he  made,  for  this  purpose,  in  the  convention  which  framed  the 
constitution,  were,  that  the  president,  the  senate,  and  judges  of  the 
supreme  court,  should  hold  their  offices  during  their  good  behavior, 
and  the  house  of  representatives  should  be  elected  by  the  people,  to 
serve  three  years. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  331 

Events  have  shown  how  well  Mr.  Hamilton  understood  the  character 
of  a  popular  government.  Nor  was  he  singular  in  his  opinions.  Intel- 
ligent and  reflecting  men,  at  that  period,  generally  entei'tained  similar 
opinions  ;  and  our  past  history  furnishes  woful  evidence  to  verify  them. 
That  such  was  the  fact,  may  appear  from  the  following  remarks  of  a 
disciple  of  Weishington,  published  forty  years  ago. 

"  Nothing  is  so  fatal  to  truth  and  tranquillity,  as  party  spirit ;  it  is 
rash,  imperious,  unyielding,  unforgiving.  Blind  to  truth  and  deaf  to 
argument,  it  sees  no  merit  in  an  enemy  ;  no  demerit  in  a  friend.  Urged 
by  the  passion  or  convenience  of  the  moment,  it  rushes  impetuously 
to  the  attainment  of  its  object,  regardless  of  events,  and  forgetting  that 
its  own  example  may  be  drawn  into  precedent,  and  under  a  change 
of  parties,  prove  a  two-edged  sword  as  fatal  to  friends  as  foes. 

"  To  a  man  versed  in  the  history  of  nations,  the  condition  of  parties 
in  the  United  States  presents  nothing  new,  but  the  men  and  the  forms 
of  proceeding.  The  general  principles,  views,  and  passions  displayed, 
are  the  same  as  have  characterized  parties  in  all  ages  and  countries. 
Individuals  of  aspiring  minds,  who  have  been  mortified  by  neglect,  or 
irritated  by  the  agitations  of  successless  competition  ;  men  who  can 
neither  bear  an  equal  nor  yield  to  a  superior,  have  the  address  to  en- 
list into  their  service,  the  credulous  and  illiterate  multitude.  To  op- 
pose them,  men  of  principle  unite  and  form  a  parly  ;  public  measures 
are  proposed  or  attacked  with  zeal ;  opposition  begets  obstinacy  ;  argu- 
ment is  resisted  by  will ;  mutual  concessions  are  either  not  proposed 
or  are  rejected  ;  and  laws  passed  under  such  circumstances  are  either 
soon  repealed,  or  are  ineffectual  in  their  operation. 

"  Parties  thus  arrayed  against  each  other,  often  lose  sight  of  the 
original  points  of  difference,  or  magnify  trifling  differences  into  matters 
of  vast  concern  to  the  public.  Zeal  is  inflamed  to  enthusiasm  ;  a  re- 
gard to  truth  is  extinguished  in  the  desire  of  victory  ;  and  moderation 
yields  to  the  apprehension  of  defeat.  Then  begins  the  reign  of  cor- 
ruption ;  each  party  determines  to  triumph  ;  and  neither  constitution 
nor  law,  religion  nor  morality,  reputation  nor  conscience,  can  raise 
effectual  barriers  to  restrain  their  passions  and  pursuits. 

"  In  this  warfare  of  parties,  the  adherents  to  each  voluntarily  put 
themselves  under  a  favorite  leader,  and  take  a  popular  name.  Thus 
organized,  each  party  rallies  under  the  name  and  the  leader,  with  the 
esprit  du  corps  for  the  moving  principle  ;  forgetting  the  origin,  or  igno- 
rant of  the  motives  of  the  association.  The  leader  is  stimulated  by 
pride  ;  his  adherents,  by  the  sound  of  his  name,  or  by  the  appellation 
of  the  party,  which  is  neither  understood  nor  intelligible.  A  white 
rose,  a  red  rose,  a  cockade  ;  round-head  or  cavalier,  whig  or  tory,  fed- 
eralist or  democrat,  or  other  insignificant  appellation,  becomes  the  ral- 
lying point  for  a  headstrong  populace,  prepared  for  violence. 

"  In  the  effervescence  of  popular  passions,  the  leader  who  has  gained 
the  confidence  of  a  party  must  feed  the  hopes  and  gratify  the  expecta- 
tions of  his  adherents.  Applying  to  faction  the  military  maxim  of 
M.  Porcius  Cato,  '  Bellum  seipsum  alit,'  war  feeds  or  sustains  itself — 
a  victorious  leader  supplies  the  wants  and  secures  the  attachment  of 
his  followers  by  dividing  among  them  the  spoils  of  the  vanquished. 
Then  commences  the  reign  of  persecution  and  revenge.     The  man 


332  HISTORY    OF    POLITICAL    PARTIES 

who  mounts  into  ofEce  on  popular  confidence,  may  rise  with  impunity 
above  the  constitution  of  his  country,  and  trample  on  the  rights  of  the 
people.  Under  the  specious  titles  of  a  republican  and  friend  of  the 
people^  he  may  exercise  the  despotism  of  a  Frederick.  The  men  who 
flatter  the  people  become  their  masters  ;  and  the  party,  which,  while  a 
minority,  will  lick  the  dust  to  gain  the  ascendency,  becomes  in  power, 
violent,  vindictive,  and  tyrannical." 

These  opinions,  when  first  published  in  1802,  may  be  considered  as 
predictions.     What  are  they  now  but  history  ? 

The  slanderous  charges  against  the  leading  federalists  continued  to 
be  repeated,  until  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  were 
brought  to  believe  them  ;  then  followed  a  change  of  the  administration. 
From  the  time  when  the  anti-federal  party  assumed  the  more  popular 
appellation  of  republican,  which  was  soon  after  the  arrival  of  the 
French  minister  in  1793,  that  epithet  became  a  powerful  instrument  in 
the  process  of  making  proselytes  to  the  party.  The  influence  o^  names 
on  the  mass  of  mankind,  was  never  more  distinctly  exhibited,  than  in 
the  increase  of  the  democratic  party  in  the  United  States.  The  popu- 
larity of  the  denomination  of  the  republican  party,  was  more  than  a 
match  for  the  popularity  of  Washington's  character  and  services,  and 
contributed  to  overthrow  his  administration.  The  misrepresentations 
which  eflfected  this  change,  impressed  falsehood  upon  the  minds  of  a 
great  portion  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  particularly  of 
the  western  states.  These  falsehoods  are  often  repeated  and  republish- 
ed, to  the  prejudice  of  the  soundest  republicans,  and  firmest  friends  of 
our  beloved  country.  So  entirely  perverted  is  public  opinion,  that  the 
term  federalist,  the  honored  appellation  of  Washington,  of  the  mem- 
bers of  his  cabinet,  and  of  the  whole  party  which  framed  the  constitu- 
tion, put  it  in  operation,  and  saved  the  country  from  anarchy  or  civil 
war,  or  from  both,  is  now  used  as  a  term  of  reproach. 

The  incessant  attacks  on  General  Washington  and  his  adherents,  for 
several  years,  succeeded  at  length  in  rendering  that  great  and  good 
man  so  unpopular,  that  it  is  doubtful  whether,  if  he  had  been  a  can- 
didate for  election  at  the  expiration  of  his  second  term  of  office,  he 
would  have  received  a  majority  of  votes  for  president.  But  at  the 
close  of  that  term,  he  declined  a  re-election,  and  retired. 

On  the  very  day  when  General  Washington  became  a  private  citizen, 
there  appeared  in  the  Aurora,  the  leading  democratic  paper  in  Phila- 
delphia, the  following  article. 

" '  Now  lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in  peace,  for  mine  eyes  have 
seen  thy  salvation,'  was  the  pious  ejaculation  of  a  man  who  beheld  a 
flood  of  happiness  rushing  on  mankind.  If  there  ever  was  a  time  that 
would  license  its  reiteration,  the  time  has  now  arrived,  for  the  man 
who  is  the  source  of  misfortunes  to  our  country,  is  this  day  reduced  to 
a  level  with  his  fellow  citizens,  and  is  no  longer  possessed  of  power  to 
multiply  evils  on  the  United  States.  If  there  was  ever  a  period  for  re- 
joicing, this  is  the  moment.  Every  heart  in  unison  with  the  peace  and 
happiness  of  the  people,  ought  to  beat  high  with  exultation,  that  the 
name  of  Washington  from  this  day  ceases  to  give  currency  to  political 
iniquity,  and  to  legalize  corruption  ;  a  new  era  that  promises  much  to 
the  people ;  for  public  measures  must  now  stand  on  their  own  merits; 


IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.  333 

and  nefarious  projects  can  be  no  longer  supported  by  a  name.  Wben 
a  retrospect  is  taken  of  the  Washington  administration  for  eight  years, 
it  is  a  subject  of  the  greatest  astonishment,  that  a  single  individual 
could  have  cankered  the  principles  of  republicanism  in  an  enlightened 
people,  and  should  have  carried  his  designs  against  public  liberty  so  far 
as  to  put  in  jeopardy  its  very  existence.  Such  however  are  the  facts  ; 
and  with  them  staring  us  in  the  face,  this  day  ought  to  be  a  day  of  ju- 
bilee in  the  United  States." — Aurora,  March  4,  1797. 

Who  can  read  or  hear  this  infamous  libel  on  Washington  and  his  ad- 
ministration, without  indignation  and  amazement } 

President  Washington,  in  his  last  message  to  Congress,  recommend- 
ed the  formation  of  a  navy  competent  to  defend  our  commerce  and  our 
sea-coast.  Mr.  Adams,  his  successor,  countenanced  the  same  proposi- 
tion. But  this  project  was  strenuously  opposed  by  the  democratic  party, 
more  particularly  by  members  of  Congress  from  the  southern  states. 
A  ^e\v  frigates  and  other  smaller  vessels  of  force  had  been  built,  with 
a  special  reference  to  the  protection  of  our  seamen  and  our  commerce 
against  the  Algerines  ;  but  an  increase  of  naval  force  was  violently  op- 
posed. One  member  of  Congress  said  openly,  that  if  our  little  navy 
was  on  fire,  and  he  could  extinguish  the  fire  by  spitting,  he  would  not 
spit. 

This  opposition  to  a  naval  force  was  subdued  by  the  brilliant  victo- 
ries of  our  frigates  in  the  war  of  1812.  To  the  honor  of  the  candid 
Monroe,  it  ought  to  be  related  that  at  the  first  session  of  Congress  after 
those  victories,  he  acknowledged  his  error  in  opposing  the  establish- 
ment of  a  navy,  and  avowed  his  purpose  of  supporting  it.  From  that 
time  the  opposition  to  the  establishment  of  a  navy  ceased.  Certain  it 
is,  that  if  the  commerce  and  sea-coast  of  the  United  States  ever  need 
defense  from  an  enemy,  the  most  economical  and  most  effectual  means 
of  defense  must  be  on  the  ocean. 

Mr.  Adams,  in  administering  the  government,  pursued,  with  some 
exceptions,  the  general  course  of  policy  which  President  Washington 
had  adopted.  But  during  his  administration,  an  attempt  was  made  to 
check  the  flood  of  slander  with  which  our  government  had  been  for 
many  years  assailed  ;  and  further,  to  counteract  the  influence  of  spies, 
who  were  supposed  to  swarm  in  the  country.  For  these  purposes, 
Congress  passed  two  laws,  called  the  alien  and  sedition  laws.  These 
acts  raised  a  violent  clamor ;  they  were  denounced  as  unconstitutional ; 
and  the  ablest  men  in  Virginia  employed  their  pens  in  composing  most 
pointed  resolutions  in  opposition  to  these  laws.  So  far  do  those  resolu- 
tions proceed  in  arguing  in  favor  of  state  rights,  that  their  authority  was 
cited  in  vindication  of  the  efforts  of  South  Carolina  to  resist  certdin 
measures  of  Congress ;  efforts  which  threatened  a  nullification  of  the 
confederacy. 

With  regard  to  the  sedition  law  it  may  be  remarked,  that  this  act  of 
Congress  created  no  new  offense.  The  publication  of  malicious  false- 
hood, to  the  injury  of  government,  was  and  is  a  crime  at  common  law; 
and  some  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
have  pronounced  this  law  of  Congress  to  be  constitutional.  But  though 
constitutional,  it  was  probably  not  expedient ;  for  a  law  of  that  kind 
can  not,  in  this  country,  be  enforced.     When  political  parlies  of  nearly 


334  HISTORY    OF    POLITICAL    PARTIES 

equal  strength,  are  arrayed  against  each  other,  any  law  restricting  the 
licentiousness  of  the  press,  will  be  denounced  as  unconstitutional.  The 
publication  of  falsehood  can  not  be  restrained  by  law.  The  sedition  law 
expired  by  its  own  limitation. 

In  regard  to  the  alien  law,  it  may  be  stated,  that  laws  of  a  similar 
tenor  have  existed  in  all  civilized  countries.  A  state  of  enmity  and  war 
between  nations  has  led  the  governments  to  employ  spies  or  secret  em- 
issaries in  an  enemy's  country,  to  detect  schemes  of  hostile  policy,  or 
to  seduce  citizens  of  such  country  into  their  interest.  At  the  time  when 
Congress  enacted  the  alien  law,  and  for  years  previous,  it  was  believed 
that  emissaries  of  foreign  nations  were  employed  to  gain  our  citizens 
to  promote  their  views,  and  seduce  them  into  a  connection  with  some 
of  the  belligerent  powers  of  Europe.  Certain  it  is  that  party  spirit,  in 
this  country,  was  greatly  exasperated  by  agents  of  the  French  govern- 
ment in  the  United  States. 

During  the  heat  of  the  French  revolution,  I  superintended  the  publi- 
cation of  two  newspapers  in  New  York ;  of  course  I  was  carefulty 
watched  by  the  partisans  of  France,  as  these  papers  were  established 
for  the  purpose  of  vindicating  and  supporting  the  policy  of  President 
Washington,  which  those  partisans  alledged  to  be  unfriendly  to  the 
French  interest.  When  conversing  with  gentlemen  in  the  coffee-house, 
I  sometimes  turned  round  suddenly  and  found  a  Frenchman  just  behind 
me,  standing  with  his  ear  as  near  me  as  convenient,  listening  to  the 
conversation. 

The  alien  law  was  justified  by  the  general  policy  and  usage  of  all 
nations,  and  by  peculiar  circumstances  then  existing  in  this  country. 
With  regard  to  alien  enemies,  such  a  law  now  exists  in  our  statute  book, 
and  it  was  executed  by  President  Madison,  during  the  war  of  1812,  upon 
Mr.  Stuart,  the  English  consul  residing  in  New  London.* 

The  division  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  into  two  political 
parties  originated  in  principle  or  honest  views ;  at  least  with  a  great 
portion  of  those  citizens  ;  but  when  formed  these  parties  were  converted 
into  the  instruments  of  personal  ambition. 

The  principal  cause  of  the  parties  now  existing  in  this  country,  and 
one  which  will  endure  as  long  as  the  constitution,  is  the  election  of  the 
chief  magistrate.  The  power  of  the  president  to  appoint  most  of  the 
officers  of  government,  and  to  remove  them  at  pleasure,  gives  to  him, 
and  to  the  candidates  for  that  office,  almost  unlimited  influence,  and 
means  of  corruption  ;  and  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  such  means  will 
be  neglected.  While  these  powers  are  vested  in  that  magistrate,  our 
country  will  never  cease  to  be  harassed  with  scrambling  for  offices,  and 
violent  political  agitations.  And  if  corruption  is  used,  it  is  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  citizens  on  whom  depends  the  election  of  the  president ; 
and  the  chief  magistrate,  elected  by  a  party,  will  usually  or  always  be 
the  president  of  a  party,  rather  than  of  the  nation. 

Parties,  to  some  extent,  will  exist  in  all  free  governments  ;  but  in  this 
country,  the  constitution,   the   fundamental   form  of  government,  is 

*  It  may  be  noticed  that  the  celebrated  orator  and  patriot,  Patrick  Henry  of  Vir- 
ginia, approved  the  alien  and  sedition  laws,  as  good  measures. —  Wirt's  life  of  that 
gentle  man,  p.  271,  ed.  1841. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  •        335 

adapted  to  call  them  into  existence,  and  perpetuate  them.  The  powers 
of  the  president  for  appointing  and  removing  officers,  are  sources  of 
endless  contentions  in  election  ;  contentions  which  will  produce  every 
species  of  corruption,  sometimes  violence,  and  always  instability  of 
public  measures.  With  these  provisions  in  the  constitution,  such  evils 
can  no  more  be  prevented  by  prohibitions  and  penalties,  than  the  laws 
of  gravity  can  be  suspended  by  human  power.  In  this  assertion,  I  am 
warranted  by  the  whole  tenor  of  the  divine  oracles,  in  the  description 
of  the  character  of  man  ;  by  the  history  of  mankind  from  Adam  to  this 
day,  every  chapter  of  which  verifies  the  Scriptures ;  and  by  the  obser- 
vations of  every  man  who  has  lived  half  a  century.  The  reason  is 
obvious ;  government  is  restraint ;  but  our  constitution,  instead  of  re- 
straining the  selfishness  and  ambition  of  men,  those  unconquerable 
passions  which  occasion  the  principal  political  disorders,  presents  the 
most  powerful  motives  to  excite  them  into  action.  The  emoluments  of 
office  operate  as  bounties  to  excite  and  encourage  factions. 

These  are  some  of  the  principal  causes  which  rend  our  nation  into 
irreconcilable  parties,  frustrating  all  efl'orts  at  union,  and  with  the  col- 
lision of  interests  growing  out  of  the  different  circumstances  of  the 
states,  defeat  all  attempts  to  establish  a  permanent  system  of  laws  and 
measures  of  general  utility,  which  are  demanded  by  all  our  national 
interests. 

Thus  it  happens  that  some  of  the  provisions  of  the  constitution, 
intended  to  be  the  principal  means  of  securing  popular  rights,  on  re- 
publican principles,  become  the  instruments  of  interminable  discord. 

The  limitation  of  the  tenure  of  the  presidential  office  to  one  term 
may  mitigate  the  evils,  but  will  not  wholly  remove  the  cause.  Nor  will 
changes  of  men  have  the  desired  eflTect.  If  the  United  States  are  ever 
to  enjoy  tranquillity,  with  general  contentment  of  the  citizens,  and  with 
a  wise  and  stable  system  of  public  measures,  while  the  president  is 
elective,  two  things  are  indispensable  :  the  first  is,  that  the  candidates 
for  that  office  shall  be  deprived,  utterly  deprived  of  the  power  of  in- 
triguing for  the  office  :  ihe  second  is,  the  establishment  of  a  senate  on 
such  principles  as  to  secure  their  entire  independence,  that  they  may- 
effectual  ly  check  the  proceedings  of  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature. 
The  independence  of  each  branch  of  the  government  is  the  sheet  an- 
chor of  constitutional  liberty. 

There  are  other  causes  of  public  evils  in  our  nation  which  are  more 
obstinate  and  formidable  than  an  injudicious  mode  of  electing  a  chief 
magistrate.  There  are,  among  all  classes  and  all  parties  of  our  citi- 
zens, erroneous  opinions  respecting  the  principles  of  republican  gov- 
ernment, which  are  at  variance  with  experience,  and  forbid  us  to  ex- 
pect, that  while  these  prevail,  we  can  ever  have  a  wise,  efficient,  peace- 
ful, and  stable  government.  These  errors  are  deeply  rooted  in  this 
country  ;  they  will  not  yield  to  argument ;  they  must  be  left  to  experi- 
ment, and  can  be  corrected  only  by  disappointment  and  suffering.  In 
the  mean  time,  the  general  character  and  operations  of  the  government 
will  be  essentially  the  same  as  at  present.  Occasionally  the  correction 
of  a  mistake  may  produce  a  temporary  alleviation  of  distress,  a  kind 
of  lucid  interval  in  national  disorders,  but  no  radical  cure. 


336  HISTORY    OF    POLITICAL    PARTIES 

If  the  citizens  of  this  country  expect  redress  from  arguments  and 
appeals  to  the  people  ;  from  incessant  complaints  of  illegal  proceedings 
in  elections  and  legislation  ;  from  bitter  criminations  and  recriminations 
of  parlies;  from  the  influence  of  the  press;  from  education  in  schools, 
and  discussions  on  morality ;  or  if  they  expect  that  the  triumphs  of 
either  party,  with  splendid  dinners,  long  speeches,  and  boisterous  hur- 
rahs over  dinner  tables,  will  unite  discordant  opinions  and  interests, 
restrain  selfishness,  ambition,  and  corruption,  subdue  the  spirit  of  in- 
subordination, the  contempt  of  law  and  constitution  now  prevalent,  and 
subject  the  mass  of  people  to  the  influence  of  truth,  by  correcting  their 
errors,  and  detaching  them  from  their  seducers, — they  unquestionably 
indulge  a  most  fatal  illusion. 

A  discussion  of  the  great  causes  of  our  political  and  commercial  dis- 
orders, is  not  within  my  design.  On  one  subject,  however,  I  must  take 
the  liberty  to  make  a  few  remarks. 

The  citizens  of  the  United  States  profess  to  constitute  a  Christian 
nation  ;  but  they  have  attempted  to  establish  a  government  solely  by 
the  help  of  human  reason.  Our  constitution  recognizes  no  Supreme 
Being,  and  expresses  no  dependence  on  Divine  aid  for  support  and 
success.  In  this  respect,  the  framers  of  the  constitution  are  rebuked, 
not  only  by  the  Scriptures,  but  by  heathen  sages.  Says  Cicero,  "  I 
never  thought  any  religion  to  be  despised.  I  have  always  considered 
the  foundation  of  our  state  to  be  laid  in  religious  institutions,  and  that 
without  the  favor  of  Heaven,  the  republic  would  never  have  arrived  to 
its  present  flourishing  condition."* 

But  what  say  the  sacred  writers  ?  "  Take  ye  wise  men  and  under- 
standing, and  known  among  your  tribes,  and  I  will  make  them  rulers 
over  you."  "  Thou  shalt  provide  out  of  all  the  people,  able  men,  such 
as  fear  God,  men  of  truth,  hating  covetousness,  and  place  such  over 
them,  to  be  rulers  of  thousands,  rulers  of  hundreds,  rulers  of  fifties, 
and  rulers  of  tens."  "  He  that  ruleth  over  men  must  be  just,  ruling 
in  the  fear  of  God."f 

Such  are  the  directions  of  inspired  truth  ;  but  in  the  selection  of  men 
to  make  and  execute  the  laws,  is  any  regard  paid  to  these  commands  ? 
Even  if  we  had  no  divine  precepts  on  the  subject,  every  intelligent 
man  might  know  that  the  characters  here  described  are  the  only  suita- 
ble persons  to  be  intrusted  with  government. 

Human  reason  is  imperfect,  subject  to  error  and  perversion  from  a 
thousand  causes,  proceeding  from  ignorance,  from  prejudice,  from  in- 
terest, from  deception.  To  aid  men  in  the  proper  use  of  this  faculty, 
and  in  the  exercise  of  the  intellectual  powers,  the  Creator  has  furnished 
them  with  laws  and  precepts  of  positive  authority,  and  binding  on  the 
conscience.  The  observation  of  these  laws  is  essential  to  the  safety 
and  happiness  of  human  society  in  all  relations,  domestic,  civil,  and 
political.  It  is  not  possible  to  deviate  from  the  divine  precepts,  either 
in  the  choice  of  rulers,  or  in  the  administration  of  laws,  without  expo- 
sing society  to  evils.  In  electing  to  office  men  wholly  incompetent  or 
vicious,  our  citizens  depart  from  divine  precepts,  renounce  divine  author- 

•  De  Nat.  Deorum,  lib.  3. 

t  DeuLi,  13;  Ex.  xviii,  21;  2  Sam.  xxiii,  3. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  337 

ity,  and  become  responsible  for  all  the  evil  consequences  of  their  reli- 
ance on  their  own  reason.  It  is  an  eternal  truth,  that  when  the  wicked 
bear  rule,  the  people  mourn. 

The  institution  of  the  Sabbath  was  designed  by  the  Creator  for  most 
important  purposes  ;  and  the  proper  observance  of  it  would  do  more  to 
preserve  peace  and  order  in  society,  than  the  prohibitions  and  penalties 
of  law.  But  the  desecration  of  this  day  is  sanctioned  by  the  govern- 
ment in  the  transportation  of  the  mails.  Thus  we  are  at  war  with  the 
principles  of  public  tranquillity  ;  at  war  with  our  duty ;  at  war  with  our 
interest ;  at  war  with  heaven. 

It  is  certain  that  a  government  thus  formed,  and  thus  administered, 
can  not  be  a  good  government ;  it  is  not  possible.  It  is  the  irreversible 
decree  of  heaven,  that  in  all  governments  founded  by  human  wisdom, 
and  conducted  only  by  human  reason,  corruption  and  disorders  must 
ultimately  compel  men  to  resort  to  physical  force  for  the  execution  of 
law  and  the  preservation  of  public  peace.  These  facts  and  principles 
may  be  considered  as  unalterable,  so  long  as  the  throne  of  the  Almighty 
and  his  moral  government  remain  unshaken. 


43 


■^1<i-   '  ^' 


338 


CHAPTER    XX. 

STATE    OF  ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY. 

COMMON     VERSION     OF     THE     BIBLE. 

In  the  first  verse  of  Deuteronomy,  it  is  said  that  Moses  spake  to  the 
children  of  Israel  on  this  side  of  Jordan,  [the  east  side,]  over  against 
the  Red  Sea.  This  is  an  erroneous  translation,  which,  as  Calmet  ob- 
serves, sadly  confuses  geography.  The  Hebrew  word  Suf  here  used, 
is  the  same  word  as  is  used  to  denote  the  Red  Sea  in  other  passages  of 
the  Scriptures,  but  in  all  those  other  passages,  it  is  followed  by  the  He- 
brew word  for  sea ;  in  this  verse  in  Deuteronomy,  the  word  for  sea  is 
not  inserted.  The  Israelites,  at  this  time,  were  on  the  east  side  of  Jor- 
dan, in  the  land  of  Moab,  over  against  the  Dead  Sea,  or  Asphaltic  Lake. 
The  word  Suf  signifies  sea- weed,  and  it  is  remarkable  that  it  is  still 
found  in  the  Swedish  language  with  the  same  signification.  The  Isra- 
elites then  were  not  over  against  the  Red  Sea,  or  Arabian  Gulf;  and 
the  present  translation  tends  to  mislead  or  confound  young  readers. 

In  Genesis  ii,  13,  the  river  Gihon  is  said  to  encompass  the  whole 
land  of  Ethiopia ;  but  the  Gihon  was  one  of  the  rivers  of  Paradise,  in 
Asia,  and  of  course  it  was  impossible  that  this  river  could  encompass 
Ethiopia  in  Africa,  for  in  such  a  case,  the  Gihon  must  have  crossed  the 
Arabian  Gulf.  The  Hebrew  word  for  Ethiopia  is  Cush ;  and  perhaps 
no  error  of  the  translators  appointed  by  King  James  is  more  palpable 
than  their  conversion  of  Cush,  in  this  and  other  passages,  into  Ethiopia ; 
following  the  Septuagint  instead  of  the  Hebrew.  Ethiopia  is  a  word  of 
Greek  formation,  not  found  in  the  Hebrew,  nor  is  any  place  of  that 
name  found  in  Asia.  Yet  Josephus  actually  decides  that  the  Gihon 
was  the  Nile.  There  is  however  no  difficulty  in  correcting  this  error. 
The  Cush  here  mentioned  was  a  territory  on  a  branch  of  the  river 
Tigris  in  Persia,  the  inhabitants  of  which  are  called  by  Pliny,  Cossei ; 
the  country  is  called  in  2  Kings  xvii,  24,  30,  Cuthah ;  the  Hebrew 
word  Cush  being  written  in  Chaldee  Cuth. 

In  Daniel  vi,  24,  there  is  a  mistake  in  orthography  which  makes  bad 
English,  and  obscures  the  sense  of  the  passage.  When  the  accusers 
of  Daniel  were  cast  into  the  den  of  lions,  it  is  said  the  lions  had  the 
mastery  of  them  or  ever  they  came  to  the  bottom  of  the  den.  The 
word  or  should  be  ere,  before. 

In  Psalm  Ixxvii,  2,  is  this  clause  of  the  verse,  "  My  sore  ran  in  the 
night."  In  the  margin  we  find  the  Hebrew  word  for  sore  is  the  name 
of  the  hand.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  why  the  hand  should  run  in 
the  night ;  unless  the  translators  supposed  the  Hebrew  word  would 
authorize  them  to  suppose  a  running  sore  on  the  hand  was  in- 
tended. The  Hebrew  verb  nagar  here  used  signifies  indeed  to  Jlow ; 
but  it  signifies  also  to  spread  or  extend^  for  flowing  always  implies 


STATE    OF    ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY.  339 

spreading  or  extending.  The  translation  should  be,  my  hand  was 
stretched  out  or  spread,  and  so  is  the  version  in  the  French  copy  of  the 
Bible,  published  by  the  Bible  Society  ;  in  the  Italian  copy  by  Diodati ; 
in  the  Latin  translation  annexed  to  Vander  Hooght's  Hebrew  Bible,  by 
Smith ;  in  the  version  of  Jerome ;  and  so  is  the  clause  translated  by 
Parkhurst  and  by  Gesenius. 

In  several  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  word  ancients  is  the 
version  of  two  different  Hebrew  words,  one  of  which  signifies  old  men 
or  persons,  seniores ;  the  other,  men  of  former  ages,  antiqui.  As  in 
present  usage,  the  English  word  ancients  refers  almost  exclusively  to 
men  of  former  ages,  antiqui,  I  have  made  the  distinction  in  my  copy 
of  the  Bible,  and  when  the  Hebrew  word  refers  to  seniores,  I  have 
rendered  it,  elders. 

In  Matthew  v,  21,  27,  33,  thei'e  is,  in  the  common  version,  this  pas- 
sage :  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  iy  them  of  old  time."  This  is 
evidently  a  wrong  translation ;  instead  of  the  word  by,  the  word  to 
should  be  used.  So  is  the  passage  rendered  in  all  the  versions  in  my 
possession,  except  in  the  English.  For  proof  of  this,  the  learned 
reader  may  turn  to  the  Greek,  Rom.  ix,  26  ;  Gal.  iii,  16 ;  Rev.  vi,  11 ; 
in  which  the  same  Greek  verb  is  followed  by  to. 

In  Matthew  xxiii,  24,  the  word  at  should  be  out :  "  Who  strain  out 
a  gnat."  Every  boy  in  our  grammar  schools  knows  that  the  Greek 
verb  used  here  signifies  to  filter.  Christ  did  not  refer  to  extraordinary 
efforts  in  swallowing  a  gnat,  but  to  the  purifying  of  liquor  by  filtering 
it.  The  use  of  at  is  evidently  an  oversight  or  misprint,  for  in  the  first 
version  of  the  Bible  by  Tyndale,  the  word  out  is  used.  All  the  versions 
of  the  New  Testament  in  my  possession,  six  in  number  and  in  different 
languages,  are  correct,  except  the  English.  It  is  surprising  that  such 
an  obvious  mistake  should  remain  uncorrected  for  more  than  two  cen- 
turies. 

In  John  viii,  6,  the  translators  have  inserted  the  words,  "  As  though 
he  heard  them  not,"  which  have  no  authority  in  the  original.  In  no 
copy  of  the  Bible,  do  I  find  these  words,  except  in  the  English. 

In  Psalm  xix,  1,  occur  the  words  handy  work — "The  firmament 
showeth  his  handy  work.''"'  Handy  implies  skill  derived  from  use  or 
experience,  and  the  word  is  not  applicable  to  the  Supreme  Being.  Dr. 
Jenks,  in  his  Commentary,  justly  observes,  that  there  is  no  warrant  for 
these  words  in  the  original.  The  Hebrew  is,  the  work  of  his  hands. 
But  there  is  another  objection  to  the  use  of  these  words  :  there  is  no 
such  legitimate  compound  as  handy  work  in  our  language.  The  true 
word  in  the  Saxon  original  is  hand-work. 

In  Acts  xii,  4,  the  word  Easter  is  inserted  for  Passover.  How  could 
the  translators  make  such  a  mistake .-'  The  apostles  celebrated  the 
Jewish  Passover,  not  Easter. 

In  Acts  vii,  59,  there  is  a  most  extraordinary  interpolation  in  this 
clause,  "  They  stoned  Stephen  calling  upon  God,  and  saying  Lord  Je- 
sus receive  my  spirit."  The  word  God  is  not  in  the  original  ;  and  the 
insertion  of  the  word  makes  Stephen  guilty  of  an  inconsistency,  as  his 
prayer  was  to  Christ.  This  erroneous  interpolation  is  noticed  by  Dick 
in  his  Theology,  Vol.  I,  331,  Greenough's  edition.  In  all  the  editions 
of  the  Bible  in  my  possession,  except  our  common  version,  this  passage 


340  STATE    OF    ENGLISH    PHILOLOGV. 

is  correct :  "  They  stoned  Stephen  invoking  or  praying,  and  saying 
Lord  Jesus  receive  my  spirit." 

In  1  Cor.  iv,  4,  there  is  a  mistake  in  the  use  of  the  word  hy  instead 
of  against :  "  I  know  nothing  by  myself,"  ought  to  be  "  I  know  nothing 
against  myself ;"  that  is,  I  am  not  conscious  of  having  done  any  thing 
wrong. 

In  Romans  viii,  21,  the  word  because  should  be  that :  "  By  reason 
of  him  who  hath  subjected  the  same  in  hope  that  the  creature  itself 
shall  be  delivered."  There  should  be  no  mark  of  a  pause  after  hope 
in  verse  20th  ;  the  pause  and  the  following  word  because  render  the 
passage  obscure,  or  rather  unintelligible.  This  mistake  is  the  conse- 
quence of  classing  the  Greek  oti  with  conjunctions ;  a  mistake  still  re- 
tained in  our  Greek  grammars  and  lexicons,  to  the  reproach  of  our 
literature. 

There  is  a  similar  mistake  and  owing  to  the  same  cause,  in  Luke  i, 
45  :  "  Blessed  is  she  that  believed,  for  there  will  be  a  performance." 
In  this  passage,  instead  of  for  should  be  that :  "  Blessed  is  she  that  be- 
lieved thai  there  will  be  a  performance."  This  correction  appears  in 
the  lexicon  of  Schrevelius,  written  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago. 
See  oti  in  that  work. 

In  Colossians  iii,  7,  there  is  a  mistranslation  in  all  the  versions  in  my 
possession.  "  In  which  ye  also  walked  formerly,  when  ye  lived  in 
them.''''  By  this  rendering,  in  them  must  refer  to  the  vices  specified  in 
verse  fifth.  This  is  tautology,  for  to  walk  in  vices  or  crimes,  and  to 
lice  in  them,  must  mean  the  same  thing.  But  the  apostle  undoubtedly 
meant,  by  the  words  en  autois,  to  refer  to  the  children  of  disobedience, 
the  wicked  perpetrators  of  the  vices,  and  therefore  the  Greek  words 
should  be  rendered  mith  them  or  among  them. — (See  RosenmuUer 
and  Macknight.) 

The  language  of  the  Bible  consists  chiefly  of  Saxon  words,  as  they 
were  used  when  the  first  version  was  made  by  Tyndale,  more  than  three 
hundred  years  ago.  The  most  of  these  words  continue  in  use,  and  con- 
stitute our  present  popular  language.  But  the  first  translator  was  a  na- 
tive of  the  north  of  England,  and  seems  to  have  used  mostly  the  Scot- 
tish dialect.  To  this  circumstance  perhaps  may  be  ascribed  the  common 
use  of  the  auxiliary  shall  in  the  Scottish  sense,  which  differs  from  the 
English,  and  as  Bishop  Lowth  observes,  shall  in  the  version  of  the  Scrip- 
tures is  often  used  in  tlie  sense  of  will.  Hence  we  must  often  under- 
stand shall  as  equivalent  to  will  in  modern  English,  or  we  must  under- 
stand passages  of  the  Scriptures  as  expressing  what  was  never  intended. 
Shall  in  the  second  and  third  person  expresses  a  command,  promise,  de- 
termination, or  threatening.  For  example,  we  say  to  a  child  or  to  a 
servant  you  shall  have  a  suit  of  clothes ;  you  shall  have  a  certain  sum 
for  a  month's  service.  This  is  a  promise  of  the  father  or  master.  We 
say  to  persons  imder  our  authority,  you  shall  perform  such  a  service  ; 
he  or  she  shall  do  what  I  command.  This  expresses  a  determination 
of  the  speaker,  and  amounts  to  a  command.  We  say  such  a  child  or 
servant  shall  be  punished  for  a  fault.  This  is  a  threatening,  Such  is 
the  use  of  shall  in  these  forms  of  speech ;  every  person,  old  or  young, 
understands  this  language  as  here  explained ;  and  no  person  customa- 
rily speaking  or  hearing  genuine  English,  ever  understands  shall,  in 


STATE    OF   ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY.  343 

such  phrases,  in  any  other  sense.     It  is  language  used  by  superiors  to 
inferiors ;  but  never  by  inferiors  to  superiors. 

Now  such  language  can  not  be  used  in  speaking  of  the  Supreme  Be- 
ing, without  a  violation  of  the  reverence  which  man  owes  to  his  sove- 
reign. But  such  use  is  often  found  in  the  common  version  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. "  The  Lord  shall  reward  the  doer  of  evil  according  to  his  wick- 
edness." 2  Sam.  iii,  39.  In  this  passage  David  did  not  intend  to  com- 
mand or  promise  what  the  Lord  would  do,  but  merely  to  foretell^  and 
shall  is  improperly  used.  The  Lord  loill  reward,  is  the  sense.  How 
very  irreverent  it  appears  to  say,  God  shall  give  Pharaoh  an  answer  of 
peace ;  our  God  shall  fight  for  us !  So  in  the  following  passages, 
"  the  brother  shall  deliver  up  the  brother  to  death ;"  "  the  children 
shall  rise  up  against  their  parents  ;"  "  ye  shall  be  hated  by  all  men  ;" 
shall  is  very  improperly  used  for  will,  as  Christ  intended  only  to  foretell, 
and  not  to  threaten,  promise  or  command.  In  no  modern  writings  is 
shall  thus  used  by  good  English  authors ;  nor  would  such  use  be  tole- 
rated. 

Equally  improper  is  the  use  of  should  for  would,  in  passages  like  the 
following :  "  If  he  were  on  earth,  he  should  not  be  a  priest."  "  For 
he  knew  who  should  betray  him."  These  are  not  good  English  ;  should 
ought  to  be  icould. 

It  is  probable  that  the  use  of  which  for  who,  respecting  persons ;  of 
shall  for  loill,  and  of  should  for  would,  has  introduced  into  the  common 
version,  a  thousand  instances  of  bad  English. 

God  speed  are  either  from  the  Saxon,  in  which  good  is  spelled  god, 
and  then  the  word  good  should  be  used,  good  speed,  which  would  be 
correct  English ;  or  these  were  the  initial  words  of  some  proverbial 
phrase,  God  speed  you.  Whatever  the  truth  may  be,  the  words  as 
now  written  ought  to  be  rejected,  for  they  are  neither  grammar  nor 
sense.  It  is  painful  to  hear  them  uttered,  as  they  often  are,  in  a  prover- 
bial phrase. 

There  are  many  words  used  in  the  common  version  which  were  well 
inserted  when  the  translation  was  made,  but  having  in  present  usage 
lost  their  former  signification,  they  do  not,  to  ordinary  readers,  express 
the  true  sense  of  the  Scriptures.  Some  of  them  are  wholly  obsolete ; 
others  are  in  use,  but  expressing  a  different  sense  from  that  which  the 
original  languages  express.  Thus  prevent,  conversation,  carriage,  cun- 
ning, never  express  in  the  Bible  the  sense  in  which  they  are  now  under- 
stood. 

It  is  often  said  that  the  present  version  of  the  Bible  is  the  standard 
of  correct  English,  and  useful  in  preserving  it.  This  seems  to  me  a 
great  mistake ;  there  being  no  book  now  in  common  use,  the  language 
of  which  is  so  ungrammatical  as  that  of  this  version.  This  language 
is,  for  the  most  part,  our  popular  language  ;  and  if  properly  corrected, 
would  be  a  fine  specimen  of  our  Saxon  or  native  tongue.  But  to  be 
made  a  model  of  grammatical  English,  it  must  be  purified  from  its  nu- 
merous errors.  This  is  the  more  necessary,  as  our  young  theologians 
sometimes  use  bad  English,  in  imitating  the  language  of  the  Scriptures. 
Especially  ought  the  version  to  be  purified  from  words  which  express  a 
sense  directly  the  reverse  of  that  which  was  intended  to  be  expressed. 
No  nian  can  be  excused  for  writing  or  saying  yes,  when  he  means  no  ; 


342  STATE    OF   ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY. 

especially  in  a  solemn  document.  Neither  time  nor  usage  can  justify 
the  use  of  disannul  and  unloose,  in  the  version  of  the  Scriptures,  when 
the  true  sense  of  the  word  of  God  is  amiul  and  loose. 

There  is  a  great  fault  in  the  present  version,  in  retaining  indelicate 
words  and  phrases,  introduced  when  the  inhabitants  of  England  were 
rude  and  unrefined.  It  appears  to  me  inexcusable,  if  not  immoral,  to 
suffer  words  to  remain  in  the  version,  which  our  manners  do  not  permit 
to  be  uttered  in  company.  Doubtless  the  Hebrew  original  was  not 
offensive  to  the  Israelites,  not  being  at  variance  with  their  opinions  and 
manners.  Very  different  is  the  case  with  us.  How  can  we  justify  the 
retaining,  in  the  sacred  oracles,  of  language  which  no  decent  person 
can  repeat  in  company,  or  in  the  pulpit,  and  which,  if  uttered  before 
his  family,  or  in  a  company  of  females,  would  expose  a  person  to  be 
turned  out  of  doors. 

Most  of  the  ideas  now  expressed  in  objectionable  terms,  may  be  ex- 
pressed in  language  which  would  not  give  offense,  or  cause  a  blush  in 
any  mixed  company,  at  the  present  day. 

Obsolete  words  and  ungrammatical  phrases,  in  the  common  version  of 

the  Scriptures. 

Which  for  who,  referring  to  persons.  This  impropriety  runs  through 
the  version. 

Leasing  {or  falsehood,  is  wholly  obsolete.     Ps.  iv. 

Trow  for  think,  suppose  or  trnist,  is  obsolete.     Luke  xvii,  9. 

Wist,  wit,  wot,  for  know  or  knew,  are  obsolete. 

Deal  for  part,  as  a  tenth  deal,  is  obsolete.     Ex.  xxix. 

Cunning  for  skillful,  is  obsolete.     Ex.  xxvi. 

Surety  for  certainly,  is  obsolete.  "  Of  a  surety,"  for  surely,  is  not 
now  good  English. 

Folk  for  persons  or  people,  is  obsolete.     Gen.  xxxiii,  15. 

Kinsfolk  for  kindred,  is  obsolete.     Luke  ii,  44. 

Evening  tide  for  evening,  is  obsolete.     Gen.  xix,  1. 

Trade  for  employment  or  occupation,  is  improper.     Gen.  xlvi,  32,  34. 

Usury  has  now  a  different  sense  from  that  in  which  it  is  used  in  the 
version. 

Let  for  hinder,  is  obsolete.     Rom.  i,  13 ;  2  Thess.  ii,  7. 

Chapiter  for  capital,  is  obsolete.     Ex.  xxxvi,  38. 

Fenced  ior  fortified,  is  obsolete.     Num.  xxxii,  17. 

Bid  for  invite,  is  obsolete.     Matth.  xxii,  9. 

Coast  for  border  of  inland  territory,  is  obsolete.     Ex.  x,  14. 

Meat  for  food  in  general,  is  obsolete.     Gen.  i,  29. 

Carriage  for  baggage,  is  wholly  obsolete.     Judges  xviii,  21. 

Entreated  for  treated,  is  obsolete.     Gen.  xii,  16. 

Hay  for  herbage  or  green  plants,  is  improper.     Prov.  xxvii,  25. 

Fray  for  terrify  or  drive  away,  is  obsolete.     Deut.  xxviii,  26. 

Give  suck,  is  obsolete  or  intolerable.     Matth.  xxiv,  19. 

Discover,  in  many  passages,  should  be  uncover,  disclose,  reveal,  or 
lay  bare.     Micah  i,  6  ;  Is.  iii,  17. 

Conversation,  in  the  version,  never  signifies  mutual  discourse.  Ps. 
xxxvii,  14. 

Prevent^  in  the  version,  never  has  the  sense  in  which  it  is  now  used. 


STATE    OF    ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY.  348 

Bushel.     There  is  now  no  such  vessel  in  use.     Matth.  v,  15. 

Offend,  in  the  version,  has  a  different  sense  from  that  in  which  it  is 
now  generally  used  and  understood. 

Instantly  for  earnestly,  is  now  improper.     Luke  vii,  4. 

Strange  for  foreign,  is,  in  many  passages,  improper.     Ezra  x,  8. 

Ship  for  boat,  is  very  improper.     Matth.  viii,  24. 

Hell  is  often  used  for  grave,  or  the  invisible  world,  and  not  for  a 
place  of  torment. 

Devil  is  often  used  most  improperly  for  demon.  Devils,  in  the  plural, 
is  improper,  for  there  is  but  one  devil  mentioned  in  the  original 
Scriptures. 

Convinceth  for  convicteth,  is  improper.     John  viii,  46. 

An  hungered  is  not  good  English.     Matth.  iv,  2. 

Cast  out  for  reject,  is  improper.     John  vi,  37. 

Thrust  out  for  excluded,  is  improper.  Luke  xiii,  28.  How  can  per- 
sons be  thrust  out  before  they  have  entered  ? 

Minished  for  diminished,  is  not  a  word  in  use.     Ps.  cvii,  39. 

Straitest  for  strictest,  is  obsolete.     Acts  xxvi,  5. 

Provoke  for  incite,  is  not  proper.     1  Chron.  xxi,  1. 

Demand  is  sometimes  used  improperly  for  ask,  inquire,  or  request. 
Job  xlii,  4. 

Take  no  thought  for  he  not  anxious,  is  not  proper.     Matth.  vi,  25. 

God  speed  is  neither  grammar  nor  sense. 

God  forbid  is  a  phrase  not  authorized  by  the  original  languages,  and 
sometimes  is  highly  improper.  "  Hath  God  cast  away  his  people  ? 
God  forbid.''^  Here  the  phrase  is  applied  to  a  past  event.  "  God 
forbid  that  God  hath  cast  away  his  people."     Rom.  xi,  1. 

Beast,  in  several  passages  in  Revelation,  is  a  bad  translation. 

ENGLISH     AUTHORS. 

It  is  often  remarked  by  foreigners,  that  the  anomalies  in  the  English 
language  render  it  of  very  difficult  acquisition,  and  they  express  much 
surprise  that  the  English  nation  should  have  neglected  to  reduce  it  to 
more  regularity.  Other  nations  have  not  been  thus  negligent  of  their 
languages,  but  have  taken  great  pains  to  give  them  a  regular  orthogra- 
phy and  construction. 

This  charge  of  neglect  is  too  well  founded,  and  is  reproachful  to 
English  literature.  The  difficulty  of  learning  our  language,  is  not  only 
experienced  by  our  own  children,  but  it  is  a  serious  obstacle  to  the  dif- 
fusion of  it  in  foreign  countries,  to  the  progress  of  science,  and  to  the 
success  of  the  gospel  among  heathen  nations. 

It  may  seem  strange,  but  it  is  true,  that  the  elements  of  our  language 
are  imperfectly  understood  by  those  who  write  expressly  for  teaching  it. 
I  have  never  yet  seen  in  any  British  book,  a  just  exposition  of  the  Eng- 
lish alphabet,  nor  any  accurate  description  of  articulation.  John  Walk- 
er took  great  pains  to  make  a  book  for  teaching  orthoepy ;  but  see 
what  work  he  makes  in  describing  and  naming  consonants. 

B  is  flat,  p  is  sharp  ;  v  is  flat,/ is  sharp  ;  d  is  flat,  t  is  sharp  ;  z  is  flat, 
s  is  sharp  ;  th  in  the  is  flat,  in  eth  is  sharp  ;  g  is  flat,  k  is  sharp  ;  ng  is 
dento-guttural  or  nasal ;  ^  in  ^o  is  hard,  in  ginger  is  soft.  The  guttu- 
rals are  k,  g,  q,  and  c  hard. 


344  STATE    OF   ENGLISH  PHILOLOGY. 

Now  the  epithets  flat  and  sharp,  hard  and  soft,  do  not  describe  the 
quality  or  uses  of  the  lettei-s ;  these  might  just  as  well  be  called  round 
and  square.  The  difference  between  b  and  p  is  simply  that  b  does  not 
represent  so  close  an  articulation  of  the  lips  as  p ;  but  both  represent 
the  same  articulation.  The  same  is  true  of  d  and  t.  The  difference 
betweeny  and  v,  is  that/ indicates  a  mere  aspiration  without  sound  ;  v 
an  aspiration  with  sound.  The  same  is  the  case  with  s  and  z,  and  with 
th  in  thi7ik  and  in  that.  G  indicates  a  close  articulation  in  go,  and  in 
ginger  its  sound  is  compound,  like  that  of  j.  There  is  no  guttural  let- 
ter or  sound  in  the  English  language. 

Walker's  miserable  account  of  the  English  alphabet,  furnishes  the 
compilers  of  spelling  books  in  this  country  with  nearly  all  they  choose 
to  write  on  the  subject.  Some  of  them  give  a  part  of  Walker's  errone- 
ous description  of  the  letters  ;  others  nothing.  To  supply  this  defect,  I 
have  given  a  more  correct  account  of  the  alphabet,  in  the  introduction 
to  the  recent  edition  of  the  American  Dictionary,  in  two  volumes  octavo, 
Vol.  I,  page  71 ;  but  a  more  full  exposition,  particularly  of  the  conso- 
nants, in  the  analysis  prefixed  to  an  improved  edition  of  my  Element- 
ary Spelling  Book. 

Walker,  in  the  introduction  to  his  Dictionary,  speaks  of  the  doubling 
of  consonants  to  produce  another  syllable,  as  in  mar,  marry.  In  ac- 
cordance with  this  opinion,  he  informs  us  that  the  word  singer  does  not 
finish  the  g  like  flnger ;  and  that  longer,  stronger,  have  g  hard  and  per- 
fectly heard,  as  in  flnger,  linger.  In  reliance  on  this  opinion,  compi- 
lers of  spelling  books  in  this  country  tell  us  that  anguish  is  pronounced 
as  if  the  first  syllable  ended  with  g,  as  in  ang-guish ;  languid  is  pro- 
nounced lang-guid.  In  some  words  the  sound  of  g  is  doubled,  as  in 
angry,  pronounced  ang-gry. 

In  pursuance  of  this  principle,  linger  is  directed  to  be  pronounced 
ling-gur.  Walker  writes  it  in  the  same  manner ;  Jameson  writes  it 
ling-ger ;  Jones  and  Sheridan  write  it  ling-gur.  All  the  modern  wri- 
ters, as  far  as  I  know,  agree  in  this  principle,  that  an  additional  conso- 
nant is  necessary  to  produce  another  syllable,  as  in  the  examples  given 
by  Walker,  mar,  rnarry. 

Now  any  person  may  in  a  moment  detect  the  error  of  this  principle, 
by  pronouncing  in  the  customary  manner,  mar-y  and  mar-ry,  for  both 
are  pronounced  in  precisely  the  same  manner.  In  no  case  of  this 
kind  is  there  more  than  one  articulation ;  the  second  consonant  being 
entirely  useless.  So  far  is  it  from  the  truth,  that  a  second  consonant  is 
necessary  in  the  second  syllable,  that  it  is  impossible  to  pronounce  it 
without  stopping  at  mar,  removing  the  tongue  from  its  position,  then 
replacing  it  for  a  second  articulation.  In  ban-ner  we  articulate  n  with 
the  end  of  the  tongue  against  the  gum  of  the  upper  teeth  ;  but  this  is 
done  but  once.  To  pronounce  the  two  consonants  n,  n,  we  must  utter 
ban,  then  remove  the  tongue  from  the  gum,  and  replace  it  to  represent 
the  second  n.  This  fawit  was  well  understood  by  the  old  grammarians, 
for  Johnson,  in  No.  88  of  the  Rambler,  mentions  the  decision  of  the 
Hebrew  grammarians  to  this  effect. 

In  the  case  of  ng,  the  truth  is  that  these  letters  always  represent  one 
and  the  same  articulation ;  the  only  difference  being  in  the  closeness  of 
the  pressure  of  the  organs.     In  singer,  the  pressure  of  the  tongue 


STATE    OF    ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY.  345 

against  the  roof  of  the  mouth  is  slight;  m finger,  the  pressure  is  more 
close  ;  but  contrary  to  the  declaration  of  Walker,  the  letter  g,  to  use 
his  words,  is  finished  in  both  cases,  and  completely  finished.  A  mod- 
erate pressure  gives  the  sound  of  ng  in  singer ;  a  closer  pressure  gives 
the  sound  in  finger,  linger ;  and  the  most  close  articulation  gives  the 
sound  of  nk,  as  in  link.  This  degree  of  pressure  stops  all  sound,  while 
the  pressure  in  singer  and  finger,  suffers  a  nasal  sound  to  be  uttered  ; 
though  in  finger  it  is  slight. 

This  exposition  refutes  the  opinion  expressed  in  many  of  our  spelling 
books,  that  n  has  a  nasal  sound  before  k,  q,  and  x,  as  in  ink,  lynx, 
puncto.  It  is  all  a  mistake  ;  bank  is  not  pronounced  bangk.  Men  who 
utter  a  nasal  sound  in  ink,  bank,  and  similar  words,  must  have  a  very 
inaccurate  ear,  and  a  very  bad  pronunciation.  Walker's  mistake,  in  this 
respect,  is  mischievous. 

The  reason  for  doubling  consonants,  in  a  multitude  of  words,  was  to 
prevent  a  mispronunciation  of  the  first  vowel.  Had  dinner,  tanner, 
been  written  with  a  single  n,  as  in  the  words  dine,  tan,  that  is  diner, 
taner,  the  learner  would  be  apt  to  give  the  first  vowel  its  long  sound,  as 
in  di-ner,  ta-ner.  This  introduction  of  a  second  consonant,  when  not 
authorized  by  the  etymology,  was  arbitrary,  though  its  effect  in  prevent- 
ing a  wrong  pronunciation  is  obvious.  The  practice,  however,  was  not 
carried  through  the  language ;  and  we  have  habit,  tenure,  liinit,  merit, 
melon,  and  a  large  portion  of  words  in  which  the  orthography  retains  a 
single  consonant,  in  conformity  with  that  of  the  original  languages  from 
which  they  are  derived,  yet  the  first  vowel  is  short. 

But  let  us  attend  to  the  consequences  of  the  mistake  of  English  wri- 
ters on  this  point.  Supposing  a  second  consonant  to  be  necessary  to 
form  a  second  syllable,  the  orthoepists  in  expressing  the  pronunciation, 
write  two  consonants  instead  of  one.  Thus  Walker  writes  morral  to 
express  moral,  lilteral  for  literal,  tennor  for  tenor,  anggur  for  anger^ 
nativvete  for  nativity,  ballance  for  balance.  All  the  orthoepists  do  the 
same,  to  some  extent ;  but  there  is  no  uniformity  in  their  works ;  nor 
does  any  good  reason  appear,  why  the  v  should  be  doubled  in  nativity^ 
and  the  d  not  doubled  in  rapidity.  The  truth  is,  all  these  writers  mis- 
took the  fact,  and  wrote  without  rule,  or  in  opposition  to  principle,  in- 
troducing thousands  of  consonants  which  are  needless,  as  they  express 
or  represent  nothing. 

In  my  books  for  teaching  the  English  language,  I  have  made  such  a 
division  of  syllables,  that  two  short  rules  expressed  in  two  or  three 
lines,  determine  or  show  the  accented  syllable  and  the  sound  of  the 
vowel  which  it  contains,  in  a  great  proportion  of  all  the  words  in  the 
language.  In  this  scheme  my  rules  lead  to  a  correct  pronunciation, 
without  the  use  of  a  single  additional  consonant,  in  any  regularly  form- 
ed word. 

There  is  another  fault  which  runs  through  all  the  English  dictiona- 
ries, in  which  syllables  are  separated  for  expressing  the  pronunciation ; 
this  is  the  neglect  to  keep  the  original  word  distinct  from  its  affix,  or 
other  additional  syllables  in  its  derivatives.  This  can  not  always  be 
done  to  advantage,  especially  in  elementary  books  for  young  learners, 
on  account  of  some  change  of  the  word  in  spelling,  or  for  other  reasons. 

44 


346  STATE  OF  ENGLISH  PHILOLOGY. 

Ar-ri-val  is  a  better  spelling  for  a  young  pupil,  than  ar-riv-al.  So 
a-ba-ted  for  a-bat-ed. 

But  in  many  cases,  the  division  of  syllables  should  present  the  origi- 
nal word  distinct  from  additional  syllables,  that  the  mode  of  spelling 
the  original  may  be  uniform,  and  that  the  manner  in  which  the  deriva- 
tive is  formed  may  be  visible. 

The  following  specimens  from  English  books,  will  illustrate  my 
observations. 

Ab-sur-di-ty  for  ab-surd-i-ty ;  ac-cep-ter  for  ac-cept-er ;  ban-dage  for 
band-age ;  bon-dage  for  bond-age ;  de-pen-dence  for  de-pend-ence ; 
de-fen-dant  for  de-fend-ant ;  doc-to-ral  for  doc-tor-al ;  doc-tri-nal  for 
doc-trin-al ;  dog-mat-i-cal  for  dog-mat-ic-al ;  do-mes-ti-cate  for  do-mes- 
tic-ate  ;  for-mal  for  form-al ;  im-por-ta-tion  for  im-port-a-tion ;  in-fan- 
try  for  in-fant-ry ;  mus-ki-ness  for  musk-i-ness ;  meth-o-dist  for  meth- 
od-ist ;  par-en-tage  for  par-ent-age.  Even  Lowth  wrote  correspon-ding 
for  correspond-ing. 

Having  in  early  life  been  instructed  in  all  the  irregularities  of  Eng- 
lish orthography,  many  of  them  were  introduced  into  my  first  publica- 
tions. In  my  later  publications,  I  have  taken  great  pains  to  banish 
them.  But  in  most  or  all  the  American  elementary  books,  the  com- 
pilers have  paid  little  regard  to  this  subject. 

The  fault  of  most  consequence  in  Walker's  dictionary  is  the  wrong 
notation  of  sounds,  which  tends  to  lead  the  inquirer  to  an  erroneous 
pronunciation.  He  gives  to  a  in  last,  mask,  and  to  a  class  of  words  in 
which  a  is  followed  by  s,  the  same  sound  it  has  in  fancy  and  man. 
This  is  called  by  Jones,  a  later  writer,  a  mincing,  modern  affectation. 
He  gives  to  oo  in  look  and  took,  the  same  sound  as  in  booth,  tool.  In 
these  examples.  Walker  directs  to  a  pronunciation  which,  if  it  is  heard 
at  all,  is  local,  but  utterly  at  variance  with  general  usage  in  Great  Brit- 
ain, as  well  as  in  this  country. 

To  the  letters  ch  in  bench,  branch.  Walker  gives  the  sound  of  sh, 
bensh,  bransh.  This  is  contrary  to  the  notation  of  other  orthoepists, 
and  to  all  good  usage. 

To  the  short  i  and  y  unaccented,  especially  to  y  at  the  end  of  words, 
Walker  gives  the  long  sound  of  e ;  as  in  asperity,  artillery,  article, 
vanity,  which  then  are  to  be  pronounced  aspereetee,  artilleeree,  arteecle, 
vaneetee,  which  Jones  denominates  ludicrous ;  but  it  is  more,  it  is 
wrong,  contrary  to  all  good  usage,  and  absolutely  ridiculous. 

Walker's  pronunciation  of  nk,  in  bank,  as  if  written  bangk,  is  not 
merely  wrong,  but  it  manifests  an  incorrect  ear  or  perception  of  sounds. 

Walker's  conversion  of  t  before  e  into  ch  in  bounteous,  beauteous, 
plenteous,  which  he  pronounces  bouncheous,  beaucheou^,  plencheous,  is 
wrong  even  to  ridiculousness ;  it  is  contrary  to  all  good  usage  in  Eng- 
land as  well  as  in  the  United  States.  Equally  wrong  is  his  frontyeer 
for  frontier. 

On  Walker's  notation  of  d  and  t  before  u,  hear  what  Jameson,  a  later 
and  more  correct  orthoepist,  writes.  "  The  letter  d,  in  certain  situa- 
tions, especially  before  the  vowels  i  and  u,  when  carelessly  pronounced, 
is  apt  to  slide  into  the  sound  of  j.  This,  which  in  fact  arises  from  a 
slovenly  enunciation,  is,  by  Walker,  laid  down  as  the  strict  rule ;  adu' 
lotion  is  to  be  pronounced  adjulation,  compendium  is  compenjeum,  in- 


STATE    OF    ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY. 

gredient  is  ingrejent.  This,  in  a  passage  read  or  spoken  with  solem- 
nity, would  be  intolerable.  In  like  manner,  the  syllabic  <m,  in  the 
words  congratulation^  flatulent,  natural,  &c.  will,  even  when  most 
carefully  spoken,  receive  a  sufficient  degree  of  the  aspirate,  without 
following  Walker's  direction  to  pronounce  them  Congrats hulashun,  flat- 
shulence,  natshuraV 

This  pronunciation  is  said  to  have  had  its  origin  in  the  sound  or  pro- 
nunciation of  M,  which  Jameson  alledges  to  be  yu.  This  name  begins 
with  a  consonant,  and  we  use  it  in  unit,  union,  unanimous,  failure,  and 
a  few  other  words ;  but  this  is  not  its  proper  pronunciation,  in  the  great 
mass  of  words  in  the  language  ;  it  is  an  exception,  and  a  corruption. 
The  proper  sound  of  u  occurs  in  duty,  tumult,  mutiny,  tribunal,  fury. 
This  sound  is  not  yu  nor  eu,  although  it  is  diphthongal.  The  attempt  to 
give  to  u  this  pronunciation,  yu,  in  a  vast  number  of  words,  where  it  is 
utterly  improper,  has  introduced  more  corruptions  than  any  other  event 
since  the  Norman  conquest. 

Knowles  writes  that  Walker's  pronunciation  in  these  examples  is  ab- 
solute vulgarity  and  absurdity.  Yet  these  intolerable  dandyisms  are 
now  taught  in  this  country,  and  especially  in  our  principal  cities. 

Nothing  is  of  more  consequence  in  a  language  than  to  preserve  uni- 
formity in  the  use  of  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.  Every  change  of 
their  proper  sounds  is  to  be  reprobated  and  rejected.  Let  d  and  t  have 
their  usual  sound. 

Among  all  English  orthoepists,  there  is  a  mistake  which  claims  no- 
tice ;  this  is,  that  t  and  c  before  i  in  certain  words  have  the  sound  of 
sh,  as  in  ocean,  ingratiate,  pronounced  oshean,  ingrashiate.  But  the 
sound  of  sh  in  such  words  does  not  proceed  from  c  or  ^  alone  ;  it  results 
from  the  combination  of  c  and  t  with  the  following  vowel.  The  effect 
of  this  mistake  is,  to  make,  in  many  words,  a  syllable  too  much.  In 
customary  practice,  ingratiate,  negotiate  are  pronounced  in  three  sylla- 
bles ;  never  in  four.  And  Walker  contradicts  his  own  rule  ;  for  he 
pronounces  ocean,  social,  saponaceous,  in  this  manner,  oshun,  soshal, 
saponaslvus. 

To  show  how  ill-adapted  the  notation  of  Walker  is  to  express  the 
real  pronunciation  of  words,  take  the  example  of  words  of  four  syllables 
ending  in  ary,  as  momentary,  secretary.  The  vowel  a,  in  words  of  this 
class,  is,  by  several  of  the  English  orthoepists,  marked  for  the  sound  of 
the  short  a  in  at,  fat.  Then  the  last  two  syllables  are  to  be  pronounc- 
ed precisely  like  the  verb  tarry.  Now  if  any  public  speaker  should 
pronounce  them  in  this  manner,  momentarry,  secretarry,  he  would  be 
derided.  The  truth  is  that  the  real  pronunciation  is,  by  all  men  of 
every  class,  momenterry,  secreterry ;  and  so  are  these  words  marked  to 
be  pronounced  by  Sheridan.  But  this  mistake  has  led  into  error  all  the 
compilers  of  spelling  books  in  this  country,  who  follow  Walker's  nota- 
tion. 

If  such  erroneous  notations  are  strictly  followed  in  our  schools,  the 
effect  is  mischievous  ;  and  if  they  are  not  followed,  they  are  useless,  as 
well  as  troublesome.  Indeed  the  attempt  to  mark  the  sounds  of  most 
unaccented  syllables  must  be  useless ;  for  such  slight,  obscure  sounds 
can  not  be  represented  on  paper.  Besides  it  is  useless  for  another  rea- 
son ;  the  pronunciation  is  learned  from  usage  by  the  ear,  and  can  not 


348  STATE    OF    ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY. 

be  altered  by  directions  in  a  book.  The  notation  of  thirty  or  forty  slight 
sounds,  incapable  of  definition,  or  of  discrimination,  except  by  the  ear, 
is  a  useless  incumbrance  in  any  elementary  book.  In  addition  to  these 
considerations,  it  may  be  stated  that  the  notations  of  sounds  in  the  Eng- 
lish books  differ  in  more  than  a  thousand  words  ;  ten  times  as  many  as 
the  differences  in  pronunciation  among  men  of  education,  either  in  this 
country  or  in  Great  Britain. 

The  attempt  to  teach  pupils  a  difference  in  the  sound  of  a  in  parent 
and  in  fair ;  a  difference  of  sound  in  branch  and  last ;  a  sound  of  a  in- 
termediate between  the  sound  of  that  letter  in  bar,  far,  and  in  man ;  and 
between  the  sound  of  e  in  mercy  and  merry,  is  perplexing  without  profit. 
There  is  no  intermediate  sound  of  a  in  far  and  in  man ;  the  sounds  in 
these  words  are  distinct;  the  pretended  intermediate  sound  is  a  mistake ; 
and  the  slight  difference  of  the  sound  of  e  in  merry  and  mercy,  is  better 
learned  by  usage  than  by  rule.  The  fastidiousness  of  men  who  attempt 
to  teach  these  distinctions  does  more  harm  than  good. 

FALSE     ORTHOGRAPHY     AND     ILL-FORMED     WORDS. 

No  fact  in  philology  presents,  in  a  stronger  light,  the  extreme  negli- 
gence of  English  writers,  than  the  introduction  into  the  language,  and 
continued  use  of  words  of  no  legitimate  origin.  Any  writer  may  make 
a  mistake  through  ignorance  or  by  oversight ;  but  that  a  nation  should 
suffer  the  most  palpable  blunders  and  vulgar  errors,  to  be  continued 
in  use,  age  after  age,  is  a  fact  which  would  be  incredible,  if  we  had  not 
the  evidence  before  our  eyes.  We  have  examples  in  the  words  disan' 
mU  and  unloose,  which  are  nonsense  ;  yet  disannul  occurs  in  six  pas- 
.sages  of  the  common  version  of  the  Scriptures,  and  unloose  in  three ; 
and  they  have  stood  there  from  the  first  translation  by  Tyndale,  more 
than  three  hundred  years.  What  is  equally  surprising,  the  word  dis- 
annul occurs  in  the  writings  of  Lord  Bacon,  in  the  works  of  Robert 
Hall,  and  in  seven  passages  of  Dick's  Theology ;  the  writings  of  the 
last  two  authors  being  recent  publications.  These  are  instances  of  the 
carelessness  of  men  of  the  first  reputation  for  scholarship  ;  for  the 
words  mentioned  are  just  as  improper  as  disruin,  unkill  and  unde- 
stroy. 

The  prefix  un  in  English  gives  a  negative  sense  ;  but  in  some  words, 
it  has  no  effect,  for  when  prefixed,  the  principal  word  remains  un- 
changed. This  is  the  case  with  unto,  which  by  the  prefix  must  signify 
not  to,  a  signification  directly  contrary  to  what  it  is  used  to  denote. 
This  compound  word  is  not  in  the  Saxon,  and  hence  it  is  never  used 
by  the  common  people,  unless  it  is  taken  from  books.  It  is  an  im- 
proper compound,  which  is  now  rejected  by  writers,  and  ought  to  be 
rejected  from  the  version  of  the  Scriptures,  and  from  the  language. 

The  same  remarks  are  applicable  to  the  use  of  un  in  unless ;  but  un 
can  not  be  rejected  from  this  word,  for  the  use  of  less,  in  its  original 
application,  can  not  now  be  revived. 

Wiseacre  is  a  most  extraordinary  instance  of  vulgar  corruption  re- 
ceived into  use.  How  toise  can  be  applicable  to  a  quantity  of  land,  is 
a  question  that  must  have  often  puzzled  inquirers.  The  true  word  is 
wise-sager,  (German,  weis  sayer.) 


STATE    OF    ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY. 

Country-dance  for  contra-dance  is  an  error  still  used  both  in  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States.  It  is  found  in  dictionaries  and  in  the 
writings  of  respectable  authors.  It  is  not  merely  bad  spelling,  but  bad 
spelling  that  leads  to  a  mistake  of  its  signification. 

Furlough  for  furlow  is  another  mistake  or  blunder  that  tends  to  mis- 
lead a  reader.  We  have  the  word  from  the  Dutch  verlof  or  Danish 
forlov,  which  signify,  leave  to  depart,  leave  of  absence,  the  precise  sig- 
nification of  the  word ;  but  our  spelling  introduces  the  word  lough,  a 
lake,  which  makes  the  word  etymologically  nonsense. 

Comptroller  for  controller  is  another  example  of  blundering  in  Eng- 
lish writers,  very  extraordinary,  for  a  bare  inspection  of  the  French 
original  (contre  and  rolle)  might  have  corrected  the  mistake.  A  comp- 
troller is  a  computer  or  counter  of  rolls  or  records,  instead  of  what  it 
was  intended  to  express,  an  officer  to  check  the  accounts  of  another 
officer.  Were  it  not  for  the  mischief  such  .a  mistake  does,  it  would  be 
laughable  enough  to  see  Congress,  and  other  legislative  bodies  using 
this  word,  and  adhering  to  the  practice  when  they  may  or  do  know  it 
to  be  wrong.  The  formers  of  the  word  might  as  well  have  written 
cogroller  or  comptstroller.  It  is  not  a  little  ridiculous  for  a  nation  to 
write  one  word  when  they  intend  to  express  the  signification  of  another, 
and  continue  the  practice  from  age  to  age  ;  especially  when  the  wri- 
ting of  the  letter  n  instead  of  mp  would  correct  the  error,  and  restore 
the  purity  of  the  language.  Now  see  the  effect  of  this  mistake.  In 
the  laws  and  resolves  of  Congress,  and  in  those  of  the  state  of  New 
York,  we  see  the  word  comptroller ;  in  Pennsylvania,  the  word  is  writ- 
ten correctly,  controller  ;  in  Connecticut,  it  is  sometimes  written  in  one 
way  and  sometimes  in  the  other.  In  this  case,  it  is  just  as  easy  to  be 
right  as  wrong ;  and  how  desirable  is  it  that  men,  who  claim  to  be 
intelligent,  should  prefer  correctness  to  mistake,  and  uniformity  to 
diversity. 

Redoubt  and  redoubtable,  instead  of  redout  and  redoutable,  are  mis- 
takes which  were  introduced  by  gross  carelessness  ;  for  any  man  might 
have  corrected  them  by  simply  opening  a  French  dictionary.  What  a 
wretched  blunderer  must  a  man  have  been,  to  suppose  these  words  to 
have  a  connection  with  the  English  word  doubt  ! 

Handicraft  and  handy-work  for  hand-craft  and  hand-work  are  easily 
accounted  for.  The  mistakes  in  writing  undoubtedly  proceeded  from 
a  vulgar  corruption  of  the  pronunciation.  The  mischief  is,  these  mis- 
takes lead  to  the  opinion,  that  the  first  part  of  the  words  is  the  adjective 
handy,  which  is  not  true. 

Farther  and  farthest  present  another  example  of  inexcusable  negli- 
gence in  English  writers  ;  for  a  moment's  reflection  might  convince  any 
English  scholar  that  there  is  no  such  word  in  English  as  farth,  from 
which  the  comparative  and  superlative  forms  of  the  word  can  be  de- 
rived. Dr.  Johnson  noticed  this  impropriety  in  his  dictionary  ninety 
years  ago.  The  true  words,  further,  furthest,  from  forth,  are  uni- 
formly used  in  the  common  version  of  the  Scriptures,  and  no  other 
word  ought  to  be  used. 

There  is  a  grammar  published  in  Philadelphia,  in  which  farther  and 
farthest  are  given  as  the  comparative  and  superlative  of  far,  and  such 
a  book  is  recommended  to  use  in  schools ! !  Such  is  the  state  of  schol- 
arship in  our  country. 


350  STATE    OP    ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY. 

Why  is  hainous  from  the  French  haineux,  written  in  English  hein,' 
ous  7  We  pronounce  it  right ;  why  spell  it  wrong,  introduce  an 
anomaly,  and  perplex  the  learner  ?  It  is  just  as  easy  to  be  regular 
and  right,  as  it  is  to  be  irregular  and  wrong. 

Why  do  the  English,  in  pronunciation,  change  humor  into  an  abom- 
inable vulgarism,  yumor  ? 

The  French  suite,  when  we  give  it  the  sense  of  a  set  of  clothes,  or 
of  rooms,  or  of  cards,  we  write  and  pronounce  as  an  English  word, 
suit.  Why,  when  it  signifies  a  retinue,  do  men  write  it  as  a  French 
word,  suite,  and  pronounce  it  siceet  ?  How  ridiculous  is  it  to  have  two 
modes  of  writing  and  pronouncing  the  same  word,  to  express  its  dif- 
ferent applications  !  Jameson  has  rejected  the  French  spelling,  as  I 
have  done. 

We  have  lancJi  from  the  French  lancer  ;  why  then  is  u  introduced 
into  the  word  ? 

The  passion  of  the  English  for  the  French  language,  or  their  igno- 
rance of  their  mother  tongue,  has  introduced  several  changes  from  right 
to  wrong  in  spelling.  Thus  the  Saxon  mold,  which  some  of  the  best 
English  writers  formerly  wrote  correctly,  has  been  changed  to  mould, 
evidently  from  the  French. 

The  word  tun,  a  cask  and  a  weight,  a  genuine  Saxon  word,  which 
was  retained  in  writing  down  to  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII,  or  later,  has 
given  way  to  ton,  from  the  French  tonne ;  and  this  change  confounds 
it  with  ton,  from  the  Latin  tonus. 

In  like  manner  mode  in  grammar,  regularly  formed  from  the  Latin 
modus,  has  given  way  to  mood,  which  spelling  is  identical  with  mood, 
temper  or  state  of  the  mind,  a  word  of  Saxon  original.  I  follow  Bishop 
Lowth,  who  writes  it  correctly,  mode. 

The  Saxon  ecg,  hege,  or  hegge,  leger,  wecg,  and  the  French  loge, 
are  now  written  edge,  hedge,  ledge,  wedge,  lodge.  The  letter  d  was 
introduced  to  prevent  a  mispronunciation,  or  to  present  to  the  eye  the 
correct  pronunciation  of  the  words.  The  same  reason  requires  the  d 
in  alledge  and  ledger;  for  if  the  etymological  spelling  is  retained, 
allege,  leger,  the  true  pronunciation  may  be  readily  mistaken.  Writers 
err  very  often  in  consequence  of  not  understanding  the  rules  which 
have  been  long  established. 

Why  is  the  letter  e  retained  in  height,  when  it  is  not  in  the  original 
word  high.     Why  not  reject  e,  and  write  hight  and  highth  7 

Why  is  calcarious  written  calcareous,  contrary  to  the  rule  observed 
in  every  other  word  from  a  like  Latin  original .'' 

When  the  discoveries  of  Lavoisier  rendered  a  new  word  convenient, 
and  he  with  his  associates  formed  oxyd,  regularly  from  the  Greek, 
why  did  the  English  change  the  word  to  oxide,  departing  from  a  rule 
invariably  observed  in  other  words,  by  which  the  Greek  upsilon  is  rep- 
resented by  the  English  y  ?  And  why  add  e  final,  when  no  reason 
required  it .''  I  am  glad  to  see  that  Ure  has  restored  the  letter  y  in  oxyd, 
and  wish  he  had  omitted  the  final  e,  which  has  no  claim  to  the  place. 

I  am  glad  also  to  see  that  Ure  has  adopted  the  true  spelling  of  such 
words  as  sulphureted,  in  which  one  t  only  is  to  be  used. 

Why  in  mineralogy  has  the  word  gang,  so  written  in  the  Teutonic, 
been  changed  into  the  barbarous  gangue  ? 


'  STATE    OF    ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY.  351 

The  English,  after  hunting  for  ages  for  the  origin  of  chimistry,  re- 
sorting by  conjecture  to  different  Greek  words,  and  writing  it  chymistry 
and  chemistry,  both  wrong,  may  now  write  the  word  correctly  by  the 
change  of  one  letter,  which  would  be  in  conformity  to  the  spelling  in 
all  other  European  languages.  But  no ;  they  continue  to  write  it  in 
both  the  erroneous  modes ;  some  with  e  and  some  with  y  ;  and  in  this 
country,  the  false  spelling  chemistry  is  beginning  to  corrupt  the  pro- 
nunciation. 

The  English  lexicographers,  ignorant  of  the  origin  of  camphor,  adop- 
ted the  popular  or  vulgar  spelling,  camphire,  and  this  finds  its  way  into 
American  books. 

How  it  happened  that  the  English  jurists  adopted  the  practice  of 
writing  thoro,  in  the  phrase  a  mensa  et  thoro,  I  can  not  conceive,  as 
there  is  no  such  Latin  word  as  thoro,  thorns ;  the  Latin  is  torus. 

The  English,  for  the  American  sleigh,  write  sledge,  and  use  it  to 
express  what  we  write  sled,  which  Jameson  acknowledges  to  be  cor- 
rect. The  English  word,  when  we  have  occasion  to  use  it,  should  be 
translated  into  sled. 

Ploio  and  to  plow,  the  noun  and  the  verb,  should  be  written  in  the 
same  manner  ;  they  are  the  same  word.  So  also  practice  and  to  prac- 
tice ;  why  write  practise,  any  more  than  notise  from  notice  7 

The  word  sythe  ought  to  be  written  without  the  letter  c ;  vise,  an 
instrument,  should  be  written  with  s,  not  vice.  Ax  should  be  written 
without  the  final  e,  as  should  deposit.  Embassador  should  be  written 
with  the  same  initial  letter  as  embassy,  and  so  it  is  always  printed  in 
Blackstone's  Commentaries. 

Melasses,  from  the  Italian  melassa,  should  be  written  with  e,  as  it  is 
always  written  by  Edwards,  in  his  History  of  the  West  Indies. 

Zink  should  be  written  with  k,  as  it  is  always  written  in  the  lan- 
guages from  which  it  is  derived,  the  German,  Danish,  and  Swedish  ; 
and  for  another  reason,  we  want  the  adjective  zinky,  as  written  by  Kir- 
wan,  and  this  could  not  be  formed  from  zinc. 

Build  should  be  written  bild,  as  it  is  in  the  German  ;  we  pronounce 
the  word  right  and  spell  it  wrong  ;  the  letter  u  does  not  belong  to  the 
original  word,  and  like  many  other  useless  letters,  serves  only  to  per- 
plex the  learner. 

Sluice  is  a  wrong  spelling ;  it  should  be  sluse,  as  it  is  contracted 
from  the  Latin  exclusus. 

Mistakes  in  etymology  sometimes  lead  into  mistakes  of  history,  and 
of  institutions  and  customs.  Such  is  the  mistake  of  the  British  writers 
on  the  feudal  system,  in  considering  the  word/ee,  emolument,  and/ee, 
a  tenure  of  land,  to  be  the  same  word,  or  of  the  same  origin.  Hence 
the  writers  infer  that  a  fee  of  land,  or  feud,  was  given  to  the  original 
owners,  as  a  reward  for  past  services.  This  is  a  great  error,  which 
renders  the  feudal  system  an  absurdity,  in  requiring  a  forfeiture  of  the 
fee,  for  failing  to  perform  future  services.  The  truth  is,  fee,  a  tenure 
of  land,  has  not  the  remotest  connection  in  origin,  with/ee,  an  emolu- 
ment ;  the  latter  being  from  the  Saxon  feah,  cattle,  which  were  used 
for  payment,  before  our  ancestors  had  money ;  and  fee,  a  tenure  of 
land,  is  an  abbreviation  of  the  Latin  ^des.  A  feud  is  land  granted  in 
trusty  for  the  performance  of  certain  services  in  future.    No  person 


352  STATE    OF    ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY. 

can  question  this  origin,  who  will  look  into  the  Italian  language.  The 
word  and  the  feudal  system  were  introduced  into  England  from  the 
south  of  Europe,  not  from  the  north.  Hence  the  word/ee,  a  tenure  of 
land,  is  not  found  in  any  language  in  the  north  of  Europe. 

When  foreign  words  are  introduced  into  the  English  language,  we 
should,  in  imitation  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  make  the  word  to  con- 
form to  English  rules  in  spelling  and  in  termination.  This  practice  has 
been  pursued  in  very  many  words ;  in  others  it  has  been  neglected  ; 
and  this  neglect  has  made  the  English  a  strange  compound  of  French 
and  English.  For  example,  aiddecamp  has  become  a  naturalized  Eng- 
lish word,  for  which  we  have  no  substitute.  Then  let  it  be  pronounced 
as  an  English  word,  and  have  an  English  plural,  aiddecamps. 

It  is  on  this  principle,  I  have  carried  through  the  language,  the  Eng- 
lish spelling  of  center,  meter,  miter,  scepter,  sepulcher ;  for  the  rule  had 
been  long  established  in  disaster,  disorder,  enter,  encounter,  tiger, 
chamber,  and  many  other  words.  Hence  I  write  maneuver,  and  also 
make  rendezvous  a  regular  English  verb.  The  French  menagerie  is  a 
common  and  a  useful  word,  and  I  have  made  it  English,  writing  it 
men'agery,  with  an  English  accent  and  pronunciation,  in  accordance 
with  baptistery,  cemetery,  presbytery. 

Words  of  French  origin,  which  have  been  long  used  in  their  French 
dress,  and  which  can  not  be  reduced  to  the  English  form,  without 
taking  an  offensive  appearance,  are  left  unaltered. 

Such  a  word  as  daguerreotype  ought  not  to  be  naturalized  in  English  ; 
and  especially  as  we  have  two  elegant  words,  heliography  and  photog- 
raphy, to  express  the  same  ideas. 

In  common  practice,  a  diversity  of  spelling  has  been  introduced  into 
English  books,  from  the  differences  in  their  orthography  in  the  lan- 
guages, Latin  or  French,  from  which  different  writers  derive  them. 
This  is  the  fact  with  indorse,  insure,  inclose,  which  are  written  also 
endorse,  ensure,  enclose.     I  have  adopted  the  former  spelling. 

Of  this  class  of  words  we  have  many  ending  in  ise  or  ize.  I  have, 
in  this  class,  followed  the  French  spelling,  in  words  which  we  have 
directly  from  the  French  language  ;  as  devise,  revise,  merchandise,  sur- 
prise. But  all  terminations  from  the  Latin  or  Greek  izo,  I  write  ize,  as 
temporize,  civilize.  When  the  original  word  ends  in  a  vowel,  the  letter 
t  is  prefixed  to  ize,  as  in  stigmatize,  anathematize;  but  when  the 
original  ends  with  a  consonant,  the  termination  ize  only  is  to  be  added. 
Hence  systematize  is  ill-formed ;  it  should  be  systemize. 

All  words  of  the  same  analogy  should  be  written  alike,  unless  for 
some  peculiar  reason.  Thus  if  author,  successor,  are  written  without  u 
in  the  last  syllable,  honor,  favor,  candor,  and  others  of  a  like  forma- 
tion, should  be  written  in  the  same  manner.  The  want  of  uniformity 
is  perplexing  to  learners,  and  it  was  a  great  fault  of  Dr.  Johnson  to 
neglect  it. 

The  word  amongst  is  not  a  legitimate  word,  but  a  corruption.  It 
should  be  always  written  among. 

Afterwards,  onwards,  towards,  upwards,  are  of  ancient  origin ;  but 
the  final  letter  s  is  useless,  and  I  have  rejected  it. 

English  authors  have  not  always  attended  to  analogies  or  rules,  in 
their  decisions  on  accentuation.     Hence  they  accent  Catholicism  on  the 


STATE    OF    ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY.  353 

second  syllable.  But  the  rule  is,  that  the  termination  ism  never 
changes  the  accent  of  the  word  to  which  it  is  added.  This  word  then 
is  to  be  pronounced  cath'oUcism,  with  the  accent  on  the  first  syllable,  as 
in  catholic. — (See  my  Elementary  Spelling  Book,  page  132.) 

So  also  imbecile,  pronounced  by  the  English  orthoepists  imbes'sil, 
should  have  the  accent  on  the  first  syllable,  as  it  is  in  analogy  with^'uye- 
nile,  puerile,  volatile. 

So  also  detinue,  in  analogy  with  avenue,  revenue,  retinue,  should 
have  the  accent  on  the  first  syllable,  not  as  the  English  books  have  it 
marked,  detin'ue.     Our  practice  in  pronouncing  it  dei'inue  is  correct. 

Whilst  for  while  is  also  a  corruption,  and  I  have  rejected  it. 

In  closing  my  remarks  on  false  or  irregular  orthography,  I  would 
suggest  that  American  printers,  if  they  would  unite  in  attempting  cor- 
rections, would  accomplish  the  object  in  a  very  short  time.  To  prove 
how  much  influence  printers  have  on  this  subject,  I  would  state  that 
within  my  memory  they  have  banished  the  use  of  the  long  s  in  printed 
books ;  they  have  corrected  the  spelling  of  household,  falsehood,  in 
which  the  s  and  h  were  formerly  united,  forming  houshold,  falshood  ; 
and  this  has  been  done  without  any  rule  given  them,  or  any  previous 
concert. 

GRAMMAR. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  a  correct  English  grammar  is  yet  a  de- 
sideratum in  Great  Britain.  All  the  English  grammars  follow  the  old 
classification  of  the  parts  of  speech,  and  the  division  and  names  of  the 
tenses,  though  very  ill  adapted  to  represent  the  real  distinctions  of  time. 

The  first  rule  of  our  grammars  is,  "  that  the  article  is  a  word  pre- 
fixed to  nouns  to  point  them  out  and  to  show  how  far  their  signification 
extends.  In  English  there  are  two  articles,  a  and  the ;  a  becomes  an 
before  a  vowel,  y  and  w  excepted,  and  before  a  silent  h  preceding  a 
vowel.  A  is  used  in  a  vague  sense,  to  point  out  one  thing  of  the  kind, 
in  other  respects  indeterminate." 

Now  it  so  happens,  that  in  a  strict  sense,  there  is  no  article  in  the 
English  language.  A  is  not  the  original  word,  but  an ;  and  this  for  the 
ease  of  utterance,  loses  n  before  a  consonant,  and  a  takes  the  place  of 
an.  The  truth  then  is,  an  or  ane  is  the  Saxon  spelling  of  one,  the  Latin 
wnus  ;  the  same  word  differently  written  ;  and  instead  of  being  an  arti- 
cle, attached  to  a  word  and  making  a  part  of  it,  is  an  adjective  denoting 
one,  and  nothing  more. 

It  is  said  that  an  or  a  is  indeterminate,  or  indefinite,  that  is,  it  is  used 
before  words  indeterminate  in  their  signification,  referring  to  one  thing 
of  the  kind,  but  not  determining  which  thing.  This  is  not  true,  as  a 
universal  fact ;  for  an  or  a  is  used  indifferently  before  any  noun,  defi- 
nite or  indefinite.  In  the  sentence  "  bring  me  an  orange  from  the  bas- 
ket," an  refers  to  any  one  of  a  number  indefinitely  ;  but  the  same  is 
the  case  with  two,  three  and  every  numerical  word  in  the  language. 
Bring  me  two  oranges,  any  two  ;  bring  me  three  oranges  from  a  basket, 
any  three,  and  so  on  to  any  number. 

But  in  other  phrases  and  sentences,  an  or  a  refers  to  nouns  as  defi- 
nite as  possible.  "  Boston  stands  on  a  peninsula."  Is  peninsula  here 
indeterminate .''     "  New  York  stands  on  an  island."     Is  island  here 

45 


354  STATE    OF   ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY. 

indefinite,  one  of  a  number,  but  uncertain  which  ?  "  Him  hath  God 
exalted  to  be  a  prince  and  a  savior."  Are  these  nouns  indefinite  ? 
"  But  ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a 
peculiar  people."  Are  these  nouns  indeterminate  .''  "  There  stood  up 
one  in  the  council,  a  pharisee,  named  Gamaliel,  a  doctor  of  the  law." 
Are  these  nouns,  a  pharisee,  a  doctor  of  the  law,  indeterminate  ? 

In  the  first  rule  of  our  grammars  then  there  are  three  errors ;  an  is 
not  an  article,  but  an  adjective,  like  one,  two,  three,  four ;  it  precedes 
any  noun,  definite  or  indefinite ;  a  does  not  become  an  before  a  vowel, 
but  the  reverse  is  the  truth  ;  an  is  original  and  becomes  a  before  a  con- 
sonant. Yet  this  rule  has  stood  in  our  grammars  for  ages,  and  our 
children  are  daily  instructed  in  all  these  positive  errors. 

Johnson  writes,  "  an  has  an  indefinite  signification,  and  means  one 
with  some  reference  to  more."  True  ;  every  number  has  reference  to 
more.  He  says  also,  "  that  an  or  a  can  be  joined  with  a  singular." 
True  ;  how  can  one  be  plural  ?  He  says  also,  "  A  has  a  peculiar  sig- 
nification, denoting  proportion  of  one  thing  to  another."  Thus  we 
say,  "  the  landlord  has  a  hundred  a  year."  But  this  is  an  elliptical 
sentence.  "  The  landlord  has  a  hundred  pounds  in  one  year,  or  for 
the  rent  of  one  year."  But  we  may  say  also,  "  the  landlord  has  two 
hundred  pounds  for  two  years'  rent,  or  he  has  a  hundred  pounds  for 
two  years'  rent,  or  a  thousand  pounds  for  ten  years'  rent ;"  and  in  these 
sentences  two  and  ten  have  a  proportion  to  the  sums  mentioned,  as 
truly  as  a  to  one  hundred ;  the  only  difference  being,  the  last  sentences 
are  not  elliptical.  But  Johnson's  remark  is  copied  into  an  American 
dictionary. 

To  an  ignorance  of  the  real  character  of  an  must  be  ascribed  the 
use  of  an  and  one  together ;  as  in  the  phrase  such  a  one,  or  such  an  one. 
"  Such  an  one  caught^  up  to  the  third  heaven."  "  I  have  had  such  a 
one  made." — (Jefferson,  I,  442.)  This  is  in  signification  precisely  the 
same  as  such  one  one,  and  nothing  more.  We  might  just  as  well  use 
the  Latin  duo  with  two,  such  duo  two,  such  tres  three.  The  Germans 
and  the  French  give  this  word  the  same  names ;  they  call  it  an  article 
and  an  adjective,  but  they  never  use  the  word  twice  together,  solch  ein 
ein,  tel  un  un ;  this  is  an  absurdity  or  blunder  peculiar  to  the  English. 

Our  grammars  present  us  with  six  tenses  of  verbs ;  but  do  not  allow 
the  definite  tenses  a  place.  Yet  the  combination  of  auxiliaries  and  par- 
ticiples in  ing,  forms  tenses  as  certainly  as  such  auxiliaries  and  partici- 
ples in  ed.  I  was  toriting  is  as  clearly  a  tense  as  I  have  written  ;  and 
the  definite  tenses  in  the  English  language  constitute  a  peculiar  excel- 
lence, by  expressing  time  with  exactness, — an  excellence  that  gives  it 
a  superiority  over  all  other  modern  languages. 

In  the  classification  of  the  parts  of  speech  there  are  mistakes  which 
render  it  impossible  to  analyze  many  sentences.  Jf  and  though  are 
called  conjunctions ;  but  this  is  not  true  :  they  are  no  more  conjunc- 
tions than  come  and  go,  or  allow,  suppose,  admit.  "  If  it  shall  be  fair 
weather  to-morrow,  we  shall  ride."  What  property  of  a  conjunction,  in 
this  sentence,  has  if  7  "  But  I  pursue,  if  that  I  may  apprehend."  If 
being  a  conjunction,  what  is  that  7    How  is  the  sentence  to  be  analyzed  i 

Though  also  is  said  to  be  a  conjunction.  Then  let  the  following  sen- 
tence be  analyzed :  "  But  though  that  we  or  an  angel  from  heaven 


STATE    OF   ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY.  355 

preach  any  other  gospel."  This  sentence  is  found  in  an  old  version  of 
the  Bible,  and  is  a  correct  sentence.  Then  according  to  our  grammars, 
but  is  a  conjunction,  though  is  a  conjunction  ;  and  what  is  that,  and  how 
governed  ?  In  the  original  form  of  such  sentences,  that  always  follow- 
ed i/"  and  though;  but  that  is  now  omitted,  and  the  sentence  is  elliptical. 

The  truth  is,  if  is  as  certainly  a  verb,  as  if  it  had  never  been  abbre- 
viated and  were  now  written  give ;  though  is  as  really  a  verb  as  it  would 
be  if  not  defective  ;  and  the  sense  of  these  words  when  used  is  the 
same  as  it  would  be  if  they  were  called  verbs.  On  no  other  principle 
can  the  sentences  in  which  they  occur  be  correctly  understood  and  re- 
solved.* 

Both  is  also  called  a  conjunction.  "  Burke  and  Fox  were  loth  great 
men."  Is  loth  in  this  sentence  a  conjunction  }  What  would  the  Lat- 
in amlo  be  in  a  like  construction  } 

Because  is  also  classed  with  conjunctions.  "  We  see  they  could  not 
enter  in  lecause  of  unbeliefs  Let  this  sentence  be  resolved  upon  the 
principle  that  lecause  is  a  conjunction.  Look  into  Tyndale's  version  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  you  will  see  the  two  words  are  separate — le 
cause,  that  is  ly  cause.  Because  is  no  more  a  conjunction  than  by  rea- 
son. 

Notwithstanding  is  also  classed  with  conjunctions,  and  provided  has 
puzzled  our  lexicographers  and  grammarians,  who  seem  at  a  loss  how 
to  dispose  of  it.  Hence  the  following  mistakes  of  very  distinguished 
writers : 

"  When  human  sacrifices  are  enforced  and  applauded  in  one  nation, 
this  is  not  because  of  their  cruelty,  but  notwithstanding  of  their  cruel- 
ty.'^''— Chalmers. 

"  They  are  willing  to  retain  the  Christian  religion,  providing  it  con- 
tinue inefficient." — Robert  Hall. 

These  sentences  are  little  better  than  nonsense.  But  let  the  senten- 
ces be  resolved  on  my  principles.  This  is  not  because  of  their  cruel- 
ty, but  notwithstanding  their  cruelty  ;  that  is,  their  cruelty  not  opposing^ 
or  in  our  modern  practice,  in  opposition  to  their  cruelty  ;  crudelitaie 
non  olstante,  the  clause  independent  or  absolute. 

They  are  willing  to  retain  the  Christian  religion,  provided  it  shall 
continue  inefficient ;  that  fact,  it  shall  continue  inefficient,  being  provi- 
ded— the  clause  independent. 

That,  when  it  refers  to  a  sentence,  is  also  classed  with  conjunctions ; 
and  so  are  the  corresponding  words  in  Greek  and  Latin,  oti  and  quod. 

*  The  following  extracts  are  from  the  pen  of  a  president  of  one  of  our  colleges: 

1.  Suppose  a  parent  allows  his  child  to  mingle  in  society. 

2.  Suppose  the  child  honestly  desires  religious  instruction. 

3.  If  the  child  come  to  me  and  ask  for  it. 

4.  Suppose  a  child  of  full  age — came  to  me. 

5.  The  law  gives  the  parent  the  power  of  prevention,  if  he  choose  to  use  it;  but 
if  he  does  not  use  it,  ancl  the  child  comes  to  me  to  perform  this  religious  service. 

If  and  suppose  are,  in  these  examples,  perfectly  equivalent.  Now  substitute 
suppose  for  if  in  the  third  example.  "  Suppose  the  child  come  to  me  and  as/c  for 
it.  '     "  Suppose  a  parent  allow  his  child  to  mingle  in  society." 

In  the  fifth  example,  if  is  followed  by  choose,  and  does,  and  comes,  in  different 
modes. 

All  these  discrepancies  and  improprieties  occur  within  the  compass  of  twenty 
lines. 


356  STATE    OF    ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY. 

This  is  the  most  pernicious  error  that  has  infected  grammar  for  fifteen 
hundred  years.  In  consequence  of  this  mistake,  Jerome,  in  his  version 
of  the  Scriptures,  has  filled  his  work  with  erroneous  translations,  such 
as  the  following :  "  Think  not  because  or  since  I  am  come  to  destroy 
the  law  and  the  prophets."  "  Ye  have  heard  because  it  was  said  to  the 
ancients."  "  And  then  will  I  profess  to  them,  because  I  never  knew  you." 
"  Believe  ye  because  I  am  able  to  do  this  ?" — and  so  on  throughout  the 
New  Testament.  The  same  mistake  is  adopted  in  a  version  of  the 
New  Testament  by  Montanus,  published  with  an  excellent  copy  of  the 
Greek  Testament  by  Leusden. 

These  mistakes  in  the  version  of  Jerome  are  corrected  in  the  Douay 
edition  of  the  Bible,  and  in  the  Rheims  New  Testament.  But  there 
are  two  or  three  mistakes  in  our  common  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  are  the  consequence  of  classing  the  English  that  with  con- 
junctions.— (See  Luke  i,  45,  and  Romans  viii,  21,  which  have  been 
before  mentioned.) 

Home  Tooke  has  mentioned  this  mistake,  and  correctly  explained 
the  use  of  that  when  referring  to  sentences ;  but  with  astonishing  in- 
consistency he  calls  it  a  conjunction. 

GRAMMATICAL     ERRORS     IN     THE    COMMON    VERSION    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES,    AND    IN 
THE    WRITINGS    OF    THE    MOST     EMINENT    BRITISH    AND    AMERICAN    AUTHORS. 

Mistakes  in  the  use  of  the  tenses. 

For  they  feared  the  people,  lest  they  should  have  been  stoned. 
[Should  be.]— Acts,  v,  26. 

The  chief  captain,  fearing  lest  Paul  should  haite  been  pulled  in  pieces 
of  them.     [Should  be  pulled  in  pieces  by  them.] — Acts  xxiii,  10. 

We  were  willing  to  have  imparted  to  you,  not  the  gospel  of  God  only, 
but  also  our  own  souls.     [We  were  willing  to  impart.] — 1  Thess.  ii,  8. 

Whom  I  would  have  retained  with  me,  that  in  thy  stead  he  might 
have  ministered  to  me,  in  the  bonds  of  the  gospel.  [Might  minister.] — 
Philemon,  13. 

On  the  morrow,  because  he  would  have  known  the  certainty  why  he 
was  accused  by  the  Jews.     [Would  know.] — Acts  xxii,  30. 

Nothing  but  the  expectation  of  this  could  have  engaged  him  to  have 
undertaken  this  voyage.  [To  undertake.] — Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  i,  253. 

The  merchants  were  certainly  disposed  to  have  consented  to  accom- 
modation.    [To  consent.] — Id.  vol.  ii,  22. 

I  expected  to  have  sent  also  a  coin.     [To  send.] — Id.  vol.  ii,  91. 

I  intended  to  have  written.     [To  write.] — Id.  vol.  ii,  303. 

See  also  vol.  iii,  400,  460,  and  vol.  iv,  23,  207,  231. 

We  can  not  think  that  they  would  all  have  dared  to  have  claimed 
their  admission.     [To  claim.] — Milner's  Church  History,  ch.  ix. 

Upon  these  particular  attractions — I  intended  to  have  touched  in  the 
present  lecture.     [To  touch.] — Good's  Book  of  Nature,  p.  46. 

It  furnished  us  with  a  great  laugh  at  the  catastrophe,  when  it  would 
really  have  been  decent  to  have  been  a  little  sorrowful.  [To  be.] — 
Mem.  of  Hannah  More,  London,  1776. 

I  intended  to  have  sent  this  away.     [To  send.] — Id.  1783. 

It  was  so  dismally  cold,  I  should  not  have  been  sorry  to  have  staid  in 
town.     [To  stay.]— Id.  1789. 


STATE  OF  ENGLISH  PHILOLOGY.  357 

I  intended  to  have  answered  your  little  shabby  letter  immediately. 
[To  answer.]— Id,  1789. 

If  I  had  not  been  sensible  that  an  intrusion  on  your  time  would  have 
been  [would  be]  a  breaking  in  upon  what  was  dedicated  to  piety  and 
virtue,  I  could  not  so  long  have  forborne  to  have  troubled  [to  trouble] 
you  with  a  letter. — Id.  Mrs.  Montague,  1791. 

They  were  restrained  from  publishing  it  by  the  evils  which  they 
found  they  might  have  suffered  on  that  account.  [Might  suffer.] — 
Macknight,  note,  Rom.  i. 

When  I  transcribed  this  prayer,  it  was  my  purpose  to  have  made  this 
book  a  collection.     [To  make.] — Johnson's  Works,  p.  682,  Dearb.  ed. 

It  would  have  been  gratifying  to  have  witnessed  its  effects.  [To 
witness.] — Reed  and  Matheson,  i,  281. 

I  might  sooner  have  gathered  materials  for  a  letter,  had  I  not  hoped 
to  have  been  reminded  of  my  promise.  [To  be.] — Johnson's  Adven- 
turer, No.  53. 

I  would  fain  have  fallen  aslsep  again  to  have  closed  my  vision.  [To 
close.] — Addison's  Spect.,  No.  3.     See  Nos.  5  and  223. 

We  hoped  to  have  seen.     [To  see.] — Id.  No.  50. 

If  it  had  been  found  impracticable  to  have  devised  models  of  a  more 
perfect  structure.     [To  devise.] — Hamilton,  Federalist,  No.  9. 

He  had  thus  as  good  a  right  to  give  this  advice  to  the  guardian,  as  he 
would  have  had  to  have  given  [to  give]  it  to  the  world. — Webster's 
Speeches,  vol.  i,  162. 

John  Huss  appears  to  have  expected  that  he  should  have  been  allowed 
to  preach  before  the  council.  [Should  be  allowed.] — Milner's  Church 
History,  iv,  185. 

Not  one  of  the  preceding  passages  is  good  English.  In  this  sentence, 
"  /  intended  to  have  written,''"'  the  verb  intended  expresses  the  time 
when  the  person  had  the  intention,  and  at  that  time,  the  purposed  wri- 
ting was  future  ;  but  to  have  written  expresses  an  act  then  past. 

This  fault  occurs  in  almost  all  authors  ;  it  is  an  every  day  occurrence 
in  public  prints  and  periodicals.  Several  examples  occur  in  the  com- 
mon version  of  the  Scriptures,  which  have  remained  uncorrected  for 
two  or  three  hundred  years. 

Other  mistakes. 

They  supposed  it  had  been  a  spirit.  [To  be,] — Mark  vi,  49.  They 
will  find  it  difficult  to  call  a  single  man  to  remembrance,  who  appeared 
to  know  that  life  was  short.     [Is  short.] — Johnson's  Rambler,  No.  71. 

The  prevalent  opinion  was  that  the  soul  survived  the  body.  [Sur- 
vives.]— Campbell's  Gospels,  p.  306. 

She  observed — that  she  was  done  with  this  world.  [Had  done.] — 
Mem.  of  H.  More,  1792. 

This  latter  fault  is  so  common  in  some  of  the  states,  as  to  be  admit- 
ted  into  books  for  Sabbath  schools. 

Would  we  not  judge  in  the  same  manner.  [Should  we  not.] — Camp- 
bell's Gospels,  p.  93. 

He  had  offered  himself  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  men,  xcas  risen 
from  the  dead  for  our  justification,  and  in  sight  of  his  disciples  was  just 
ascended  up  to  heaven.  [Had  risen,  and  had  ascended.] — Milner's  Ch. 
Hist.,  ch.  1. 


358  STATE    OF    ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY. 

The  days  were  not  expired.     [Had.] — 1  Sam.  xviii,  26. 

After  the  year  was  expired.  [Had.] — Esther  i,  5  ;  Ezek.  xliii,  27  ; 
Acts  vii,  30. 

Was  expired.     [Had.] — Roscoe,  Leo  X,  I,  84. 

If  she  is  returned  to  her  father's  house.  [Has  returned.] — Lev. 
xxii,  13. 

Is  counsel  perished — [Has.]  Is  their  wisdom  vanished.  [Has.] — 
Jer.  xlix,  7. 

Inclined  to  pine  for  that  which  is  irrecoverably  vanished.  [Has.] — 
Rambler,  No.  17. 

Heshbon  is  perished.  [Has.] — Numbers  xxi,  30  ;  2  Sam.  i,  17  ; 
Job  XXX,  2. 

I  am  lately  returned.     [Have.] — Jefferson,  vol.  ii,  18. 

Flavia  is  departed.     [Has.] — Rambler,  No.  17. 

Demochares  was  arrived.  [Had.] — Rambler,  No.  101 ;  see  163,  198. 

Workmen  were  arrived.  [Had.] — Mitford's  Greece,  vol.  v.  111  ; 
Butler's  Analogy,  138,  37  ;  Murphy's  Tacitus,  vol.  i,  76. 

Are  now  ceased.     [Have.] — Butler's  Analogy,  193. 

The  sixty  days  were  not  elapsed.  [Had  not.] — Murphy's  Tacitus, 
vol.  i,  171. 

The  first  transports  of  new  felicity  are  subsided.  [Have.] — Ram- 
bler, No.  72. 

Ours  were  eixherjled  or  imprisoned.  [Had  fled  or  were  imprisoned.] 
— Hume's  Hist.,  vol.  ii. 

They  were  arrived.     [Had.] — Gibbon,  vol.  i,  2. 

This  use  of  intransitive  verbs  in  a  passive  form  is  common  in  Eng- 
land ;  though  infrequent  in  the  United  States.  It  is  evidently  a  de- 
parture from  the  original  idiom  of  the  Saxon,  for  it  is  rarely  heard 
among  our  yeomanry.  The  English  seem  to  have  borrowed  it  from 
the  French.  But  however  the  use  originated,  it  is  such  a  gross  viola- 
tion of  principle,  that  it  ought  to  be  reprobated  and  carefully  avoided. 
What  should  we  say  to  these  phrases  :  He  was  appeared  at  an  early 
hour.  They  were  walked  half  a  mile.  The  patient  was  slept  well  the 
last  night.  These  phrases  are  just  as  correct  as  is  perished^  was  ar- 
rived, were  expired. 

A  passage  in  the  history  of  Herodotus  which  has  manifestly  been 
written  in  Italy.     [Was  written.] — Milford,  sect.  11,  note. 

Buildings  have  all  been  anterior  to  the  age  to  which  they  are  com- 
monly attributed.     [Were  anterior.] — Id.  ch.  x,  sect.  11,  note. 

Homer  has  been  [was]  far  more  conversant  in  military  matters  than 
Hesiod. — Mitford,  vol.  i,  140. 

This  mistake  of  the  tense  is  evidently  copied  from  the  French,  and 
I  know  of  no  author  who  has  fallen  into  it,  so  frequently  as  Mitford. 

It  would  seem  that  inquietude  was  [is]  as  natural  to  it  as  its  fluidity. 
— Goldsmith's  An.  Nat,  vol.  i,  p.  166. 

If  men  were  assured  that  the  unknown  event,  death,  was  not  the  de- 
struction of  our  faculties  of  perception  and  action.  [Is  not.] — Butler's 
Analogy,  ch.  i,  part  2. 

I  observed  that  love  constituted  [constitutes]  the  whole  character  of 
God.— Dwight's  Theol.,  vol.  i,  165. 


STATE    OF   ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY.  359 

Let  us  suppose  a  man  convinced,  notwithstanding  the  disorders  of 
the  world,  that  it  was  [is]  under  the  direction  of  an  infinitely  perfect 
being. — Butler's  Analogy  :  see  part  2,  ch.  v,  and  ch.  viii. 

We  might  have  expected  that  other  sort  of  persons  should  have  been 
chosen.  [Would.]  Three  other  instances  occur  in  the  same  sentence. 
Id.  part  2,  ch,  iii. 

Agabus — signified  by  the  spirit  that  there  should  [would]  be  a  great 
dearth  throughout  all  the  world.  Acts  xi,  28.  The  like  fault  occurs  in 
Hebrews  viii,  4,  7  ;  John  xiii,  11 ;  and  in  several  other  passages  of  the 
common  version. 

Upon  the  knight's  asking  him  who  preached  to-morrow. — Addison's 
Spect.,  No.  106. 

God  never  suffers  the  plain  and  faithful  denunciation  of  his  Gospel 
to  be  altogether  fruitless. — Milner,  ch.  x. 

Denunciation  is  here  most  improperly  used  for  annunciation^  or 
preaching. 

Attain  for  obtain. 

If  he  finds — that  he  can  not  deserve  regard  or  can  not  attain  it. 
[Obtain.]— Rambler,  No.  2. 

Some  previous  knowledge  must  be  attained.  [Obtained.] — Id.  No. 
57. 

I  was  not  likely  ever  to  attain  them.     [Obtain.] — Id.  No.  197. 

Every  thing  future  is  to  be  estimated,  by  a  wise  man,  in  proportion  to 
the  probability  of  obtaining  it,  and  its  value  when  attained.  [Ob- 
tained.]—Id.  No.  20. 

To  the  rich  I  would  tell  of  inexhaustible  treeisures,  and  the  sure 
method  to  attain  them.     [Obtain.] — Id.  No.  30. 

Property  is  a  kind  of  good  which  may  be  more  easily  attained.  [Ob- 
tained.]— Robert  Hall^  vol.  i,  pp.  32,  35. 

Freedom  was  attained.     [Obtained.] — Id.  vol.  ii,  p.  46. 

If  he  may  deviate  a  little  to  attain  the  see  of  Winchester.  [Obtain.] — 
Id.  vol.  ii,  p.  64. 

After  Augustus  had  attained  the  peaceable  possession  of  the  whole 
empire.     [Obtained.] — Henry's  Britain,  vol.  i,  p.  17. 

It  is  now  a  part  of  your  plans  for  future  life,  to  begin  the  great  work 
'  of  attaining  his  approbation.  [Obtaining.] — Dwight's  TheoL,  vol.  i, 
p.  118. 

This  improper  use  of  attain  originated  probably  in  a  mistake  respect- 
ing its  etymology.  Bailey,  Ash,  and  Johnson,  all  refer  the  word  to  the 
Latin  attineo.  This  is  a  palpable  error :  it  is  from  attingo,  and  the 
true  sense  is  to  reach  or  come  to,  and  hence  the  word  should  always  be 
followed  by  to,  as  it  is  in  the  common  version  of  the  Scriptures.  We 
obtain  land  by  purchase ;  we  obtain  a  sum  of  money  by  borrowing ; 
but  we  do  not  attain  them.  The  correct  use  of  attain  may  be  seen  in 
Gen.  xlvii,  9  ;  Ps.  cxxxix,  6  ;  Prov.  i,  5.* 

*  We  need  not  be  surprised  at  the  mistakes  of  authors,  when  we  consider  the 
superficial  knowledge  of  those  who  compile  grammars.  The  most  popular  English 
grammar  of  modern  days  was  compiled  by  a  man  who  had  no  acquaintance  with 
our  mother  tongue,  and  who  had  not  the  classical  attainments  which  are  indispen> 
sable  qualifications  for  the  admission  of  freshmen  in  our  colleges. 


860  STATE    OF   ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY. 


ETYMOLOGY.* 


The  only  English  author  who  has,  to  my  knowledge,  made  any  im- 
portant improvement  in  etymological  inquiries,  within  a  century  past,  is 
John  Home  Tooke.     We  are  indebted  to  this  author  for  some  useful 
discoveries,  or  illustrations,  of  the  origin  of  words.     Many  of  his  ety- 
'^  mologies  are  new  and  correct.     But  for  want  of  discovering  the  radical 

meaning  of  words,  and  of  the  principles  of  derivation,  and  from  his  want 
of  more  extended  researches,  he  hastily  adopted  great  errors.  For 
example,  he  says  right  signifies  what  is  ordered.  To  arrive  at  this 
conclusion,  he  begins  with  the  radical  verb re^o,  rectum;  then  resorts  to 
the  compound  dirigo,  directum  ;  and  from  this  he  deduces  the  sense  of 
direct,  to  order. 

All  this  is  as  unnatural  as  it  is  erroneous.  Right,  Latin  rectus,  is 
straight,  from  the  radical  sense  of  rego,  to  rule,  which  is  to  strain, 
stretch ;  and  straight  is  the  physical  sense,  whence  we  have  the  moral 
sense  of  rectitude  and  righteousness.  The  opposite  sense  of  wrong  is 
from  wring,  to  twist  or  pervert ;  so  iniquity  from  inequality. 

Tooke  says  that  truth  means  simply  what  is  trowed,  thought,  or  sup- 
posed ;  and  hence  there  is  nothing  but  truth  in  the  world.  Here  he 
mistakes  the  radical  sense  ;  for  true  is  what  \s  fast,  firm,  and  truth  is 
firmness.  Had  Tooke  consulted  the  Swedish  and  Dajiish  languages,  he 
would  have  discovered  his  mistake. 

Any  person  who  wishes  to  see  how  utterly  ignorant  Tooke  was  of 
the  radical  sense  of  many  words,  and  of  the  process  of  derivation,  may 
satisfy  his  mind  by  examining  his  explanations  of  the  proposition  for, 
which  are  a  tissue  of  mistakes  from  beginding  to  end. 

In  proof  of  the  low  state  of  etymological  knowledge  in  Great  Britain, 
I  will  advert  to  Richardson's  Dictionary. 

Richardson,  or  his  publisher,  in  a  prospectus  of  his  dictionary,  has 
attacked  me  without  provocation,  and  in  violation  of  all  the  rules  of 
courtesy.  He  charges  me  with  "  abjuring  the  assistance  of  Skinner 
and  Vossius,  and  the  learned  elders  of  lexicography,"  This  charge  is 
too  general  to  be  correct.  I  used  Skinner,  when  his  work  could  be  of 
any  assistance  to  me  ;  and  I  abjured  Vossius,  only  when  I  found  his 
etymologies  so  utterly  incorrect  as  to  be  worse  than  useless. 

The  prospectus  adds  :  "  There  is  a  display  of  oriental  reading  in  his 
preliminary  essays,  which,  as  introductory  to  a  dictionary  of  the  English 
language,  seems  as  appropriate  and  useful,  as  a  reference  to  the  code 
of  Gentoo  laws  to  decide  a  question  of  English  inheritance."  This 
representation  proves  the  author  to  be  utterly  ignorant  of  the  connec- 
tion between  the  oriental  languages,  and  their  descendants  in  the  west 
of  Europe.  For  want  of  the  knowledge  which  I  have  employed,  the 
author  heis  fallen  into  egregious  mistakes. 

The  prospectus  further  asserts,  that  "  Dr.  Webster  was  entirely  unac- 
quainted with  our  old  authors."     This  is  untrue  ;  I  had  been  for  forty 

*  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  men  may  learn  to  read  and  speak  a  language  per- 
fectly, without  having  much  knowledge  of  the  etymology  of  words.  This  is  a  dis- 
tinct subject,  and  the  acquisition  of  any  tolerable  knowledge  of  it  requires  a  distinct 
course  of  study. 


STATE   OF   ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY.  361 

years  acquainted  with  some  of  the  best  of  the  old  authors ;  but  I  never 
found  any  use  in  consulting  them,  except  in  illustrating  three  or  four 
words.  And  I  go  further  and  affirm,  that  scarcely  one  of  the  early 
writers,  anterior  to  the  age  of  Spenser,  is  worth  reading,  except  for 
gratifying  the  curiosity  of  an  antiquary.  I  took  a  better  course  ;  I  ap- 
plied myself  to  examine  our  mother-tongue,  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  authors, 
and  from  them  derived  essential  benefit. 

The  following  examples  will  show  what  title  the  author  has  to  im- 
peach my  labors  and  my  dictionary. 

Ahet^  Saxon  befan,  the  author  says  is  applied  to  inciting,  causing  to 
heat  or  become  better. — [From  Skinner.] 

Now  let  us  substitute  beat  for  abet,  in  the  examples  which  Richardson 
gives  to  illustrate  his  definitions. 

It  may  not  be, 
And  you  that  do  beat  [abet]  him  in  this  kind. 
Cherish  rebellion,  and  are  rebels  all. — Shaks. 

But  let  the  beaters  [abettors]  of  the  panther's  crime 
Learn  to  make  fairer  wars  another  time. — Dryden. 

That  which  demands  to  be  next  considered  is  happiness ;  as  being 
in  itself  most  considerable  ;  as  beating  [abetting]  the  cause  of  truth. — 
Wollaston. 

These  examples  prove  the  author's  explanation  not  only  to  be  false, 
but  ridiculous.  This  is  not  all ;  the  author  omits  a  most  material  cir- 
cumstance in  the  definition — the  application  or  appropriation  of  the 
word  to  the  act  of  encouraging  or  supporting  a  crime. 

This  defect  of  explaining  the  appropriate  use  of  words,  a  most  ne- 
cessary part  of  definition,  runs  through  the  whole  work. 

Able,  the  author,  from  Tooke,  refers  to  the  Gothic  abal,  strength. 
This  is  a  mistake  ;  it  has  no  connection  with  abal,  any  more  than  it  has 
with  bell  or  boivl. 

The  passage  from  Wiclif,  which  the  author  cites,  might  have  taught 
the  author  the  error  of  his  etymology.  "  Vessels  of  wrath  the  able 
into  deeth,''''  The  passage  is  in  Romans  ix,  22,  and  in  our  version,  it  is 
rendered,  vessels  of  wrath^^^ed  to  destruction.  Wiclif  understood  the 
word,  which  is  from  the  Latin  habilis,  through  the  Norman.  The  orig- 
inal signification  of  able  is^t,  suitable,  adapted,  without  any  particular 
reference  to  strength.  All  the  uses  of  the  word,  implying  strength^ 
are  derivative  or  secondary. 

Arsenic,  the  author  from  Vossius  deduces  from  the  Greek  arsen,  a 
male,  so  called  from  its  masculine  force  in  destroying  man.  This  is  a 
mistake,  and  a  ridiculous  one  too.  The  word  is  of  oriental  origin.  The 
Greeks  borrowed  the  word  from  the  east. 

Algebra,  the  author  from  Menage  refers  to  the  Arabic  algiabaral, 
rei  redintegratio,  the  restoration  of  any  thing.  This  is  not  true  ;  it  is  of 
Arabic  origin  and  easily  explained,  as  it  is  in  my  dictionary. 

Camphor,  the  author  spells  camphire,  which  is  wrong.  He  says 
Vossius  thinks  it  is  from  the  Hebrew ;  but  it  seems  Richardson  knows 
nothing  about  its  origin.  Yet  the  word  presents  no  difficulty.  See  the 
origin  and  explanation  in  my  dictionary. 

46 


362  STATE    OF   ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY. 

Almanac.  This  word  Wachter  and  Menage  pronounce  to  be  of 
unsettled  origin  ;  and  Richardson  gives  no  explanation,  although  nothing 
is  better  settled  than  its  origin.     See  my  dictionary. 

Now  here  are  four  words  from  the  oriental  languages,  of  which  the 
author  appears  to  know  nothing,  and  a  knowledge  of  which  the  author 
thinks  as  little  useful,  as  a  code  of  Gentoo  laws  to  decide  a  question  of 
English  inheritance. 

Allow.  This  word  Richardson  informs  us  Menage  refers  to  the 
Latin  allaudare ;  but  Wachter  to  the  German  lauien  [erlauben,]  Anglo- 
Saxon  lyian,  to  permit.  Now  if  the  author  had  been  well  acquainted 
with  English  law  language  and  history,  he  would  not  have  committed 
such  a  mistake  ;  for  in  that  language,  alloioance  is  allocatio. 

Attain,  the  author  refers  to  the  French  attaindre,  Latin  attineo. 
But  there  is  no  French  attaindre ;  the  word  intended  is  atteindre ;  this 
however  is  not  from  the  Latin  attineo,  but  from  atlingo.  In  this  refer- 
ence Johnson  and  all  the  English  lexicographers  are  erroneous. 

Attract,  the  Latin  attraho,  the  author  from  Vossius,  supposes  to  be 
from  trans  and  vchere,  quasi  travehere.  How  can  men  of  a  moderate 
share  of  learning  make  such  blunders .''  The  Latin  traho  is  the  English 
drato. 

Beau.  The  author  thinks  the  plural  of  this  word,  leaux,  may  have 
been  corrupted  into  bucks.  Was  there  ever  such  a  combination  of  igno- 
rance and  stupidity  !  There  is  no  more  connection  between  beaux  and 
bucks  than  between  booby  and  bandit,  or  between  garden  and  ginger- 
bread. Beaux  is  the  plural  of  beau,  and  this  is  a  contraction  of  the 
Latin  bellus. 

Cause  gives  the  "  elders  of  lexicography"  no  little  trouble.  Rich- 
ardson tells  us  that  "Some  think  it  is  so  called  a  chao,  because  chaos 
was  the  first  cause  of  all  things  :  [what,  before  the  Deity  ?]  Others 
from  the  Greek  x'*^"''?-,  heat  or  burning,  because  a  cause  is  that  which 
kindles  and  inflames  us  to  action.  Some  a  cavendo,  because  it  is  that 
qucB  cavet,  that  any  thing  should  be  done  or  not  be  done.  Some  a  casu 
quod  contigit,  accidit.  Vossius  is  in  favor  of  caiso,  seu  quaiso,  as  the 
ancients  wrote  for  quaiso.'''' 

It  is  difficult  to  imagine  that  more  nonsense  could  be  crowded  into 
80  small  a  compass.  Neither  Richardson,  nor  any  of  his  elders  of  lex- 
icography, appears  to  have  had  the  least  knowledge  of  the  Welsh  lan- 
guage, in  which  is  found' the  original  Celtic  word  from  which  the  Latins 
had  causa.     The  Welsh  word  denotes  an  agent  or  impelling  force. 

In  consequence  of  not  understanding  the  primary  sense,  Richardson's 
definition  is  erroneous,  and  little  better  than  nonsense  from  beginning  to 
end. 

Conge.  The  author  tells  us  that  Menage,  Skinner,  and  Du  Cange, 
agree  that  this  word  is  from  the  Latin  commeatus.  The  process  is  thus 
stated  :  Italian  commiato,  comiato,  comjato,  congedo.  French  thus  : 
commeatus,  commiatus,  comjalus,  conge.  Now  we  might  as  well  derive 
dog  from  doctissimus,  thus  :  doctissimus,  doctisse,  docte,  dog. 

This  word  presents  not  the  least  difficulty  to  one  versed  in  the  Latin, 
Italian,  and  Celtic  languages.  It  is  from  the  Italian  congedo,  leave, 
permission,  from  congedare,  to  give  leave,  from  the  Latin  concede. 

Council  and  counsel  Richardson  unites,  considering  both  as  from  one 
source  ;  whereas  they  have  not  the  remotest  connection  in  origin. 


STATE    OF    ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY.  363 

Deny,  the  French  denier,  Latin  denego,  Richardson  supposes  to  be 
from  de  ne  agere,  be  it  not,  let  it  not  be.  A  tyro  of  fourteen  years  of 
age  ought  to  be  ashamed  of  such  a  supposition.  The  word  is  from  the 
French  and  Latin  as  above ;  but  the  principal  verb  nego,  has  its  root  in 
the  VVelsh  nacu,  Swedish  neka,  to  deny,  hence  the  English  nay. 

Floor.  Skinner  suggests  that  this  word  may  have  been  derived  from 
the  practice,  in  the  spring,  of  sprinkling  floors  •with  Jlowers.  Miserable 
guessing !  Floor  is  a  word  which  originally  signified  the  earth  or  its 
surface,  for  the  earth  was  the  first  floor  of  men,  as  it  is  still  of  the 
peasantry  in  many  countries.  This  word  is  valuable,  as  it  is  found  in 
the  Basque  or  Cantabrian  language  of  Spain ;  in  the  VVelsh  and  Irish ; 
in  the  Saxon,  Dutch,  English,  and  German.  In  the  latter,  the  word  is 
Jlur,  still  signifying  a  field  or  level  ground,  as  well  as  floor.  It  is  thus 
that  etymology  illustrates  history  and  proves  the  common  origin  of  na- 
tions. Of  this  result,  Richardson  appears  not  to  have  the  least  concep- 
tion. 

Diamond  is  said  by  all  the  etymologists,  (and  Richardson  adopts  their 
opinion,)  to  be  formed  from  the  Greek  «  privative  and  dufiuui  to  subdue  ; 
quod  nulla  vi  domabilis.  Now  if  Richardson  had  looked  into  the  Welsh, 
he  would  have  seen  at  once  that  this  word  has  no  more  connection  with 
those  Greek  words,  than  the  word  gem  has  with  toad-stool.  See  Ada- 
mant in  my  dictionary. 

Argue  is  deduced  from  the  Greek  aQyo;,  clear,  manifest.  But  this  is 
not  the  meaning  of  agyog  ;  this  word  signifies  white  ;  that  is,  vacant,  as 
any  man  may  see  by  its  derivatives.  Yet  the  author,  from  this  mistake, 
proceeds  to  give  a  wrong  interpretation  of  the  verb.  The  primary 
sense  of  the  Latin  arguo  is  to  strive,  twist,  struggle  in  debate ;  hence 
its  derivative  senses,  smart,  witty,  jangling,  &c. ;  senses  which  can  not 
be  deduced  from  clearness,  openness. 

Aver  is  deduced  from  the  Latin  vereor,  to  fear.  Then  aver,  vereor, 
and  year,  are  from  one  source.  Was  ever  such  blundering  before  ad- 
mitted into  books  ? 

Avoid  is  deduced  from  the  Latin  vacuus,  vacus,  vocus.  This  is  all 
mistake,  and  ridiculous  mistake  too,  for  the  words  have  different  radi- 
cal elements. 

Clear,  Richardson  deduces  from  the  Latin  calo,  to  call ;  and  from 
tlie  practice  in  games  of  proclaiming  the  victorious.  He  then  proceeds 
to  explain  the  word,  in  conformity  with  this  opinion,  and  gives  a  series 
of  palpable  mistakes. 

Dispatch,  Richardson  from  Menage  forms  from  despedire,  that  is, 
expedire.  So  Skinner.  Expedire,  dicitur  qui  pedem  retentura  liberat. 
[Donatus.]  Then  to  dispatch  is  to  release  the  detained  foot.  What 
blundering !  These  men  make  a  Latin  word  to  answer  their  purpose  ; 
and  make  one  with  wrong  radical  letters ;  for  they  seem  not  to  know 
that  tch  in  English  almost  always  represent  a  palatal  letter  c  or  k.  See 
latch  and  match,  in  my  dictionary.  When  they  have  made  despedire, 
they  commit  another  enormity,  and  suppose  it  to  coincide  with  expedire  / 
and  this  has  a  d  instead  of  a  c  in  the  radix,  which  they  suppose  to  be 
pes,  pedis.     Such  absurdities  hardly  deserve  exposure. 

Furl,  says  Richardson,  is  probably  a  contraction  of  furdle  or  fardle. 
Now  how  easily  might  the  author  have  turned  to  a  French  dictionary, 
and  discovered  the  true  original  in  the  French /er/er.' 


364  STATE    OF   ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY. 

Gallant  furnishes  the  theme  of  a  long  story,  and  of  ridiculous  con- 
jectures, but  at  length  it  is  supposed  that  the  word  is  from  the  Saxon 
compound,  ge  ielan,  to  kindle.  Nothing  is  more  obvious  to  a  man  who 
understands  the  primary  ideas  of  words.  Gallant  is  from  the  radix  of 
gaJlus,  a  cock,  and  Welsh  gallii,  to  be  able,  the  primary  sense  of 
.  which  is  to  strain,  and  push  forward,  giving  the  sense  of  strength  and 

*-jf^       boldness. 

Glory  is  supposed  to  be  from  the  Greek  ykaaaa^  the  tongue,  from  a 
conjectured  connection  between  glory  and  fame.  No ;  glory  is  from 
the  common  radix  of  clear,  and  its  primary  sense  is  brightness,  or 
shining. 

Glib  is  referred  to  the  Saxon  ge  hleapan,  to  run  or  leap.  How  easy 
would  it  have  been  to  advert  to  the  Latin  glaber,  a  word  of  the  same 
elements ! 

Gridiron  is  referred  to  the  French  griller,  a  word  of  different  rad- 
icals. Had  Richardson  consulted  the  Welsh,  he  would  have  found  the 
real  origin  in  the  Welsh  greadian,  to  heat,  to  roast. 

Hogshead  is  referred  to  a  Dutch  compound  word  signifying  a  meas- 
ure, and  to  hold.  How  strange  it  is,  that  neither  Richardson  nor  one 
of  his  authorities  should  discover  that  the  word,  in  four  different  lan- 
guages on  the  continent,  signifies  oxhead  ! 

Richardson  cites  Vossius,  as  deciding  that  the  vfor^  father  is  from  the 
infantile  cry,  pa,  pa.  Miserable  conjecture  !  It  seems  incredible  that 
any  respectable  man  could  indulge  such  puerility.  The  word  signifies 
indeed  geniior,  but  such  a  signification  could  not  have  proceeded  from 
such  a  babyish  source. 

It  has  been  the  misfortune  of  all  the  European  etymologists  whose 
works  I  have  consulted,  to  be  led  into  errors,  in  assigning  words  to  their 
originals,  by  a  resemblance  of  words  in  orthography  and  pronuncia- 
tion ;  while  they  have  overlooked  or  never  discovered  the  natural  con- 
nection between  physical  actions  and  properties  ;  nor  the  customary  as- 
sociations from  which  derived  words  proceed.  Hence  they  often 
imagine  affinities  derived  from  sounds  merely,  or  from  the  most  trivial 
circumstances.  Thus,  for  example,  the  word  floor  is  conjectured  to 
have  had  its  origin  in  the  practice  of  sprinkling  floors  with  flowers. 
There  is  a  resemblance  in  orthography  and  sound  between  these  words ; 
but  when  or  where  has  such  a  practice  existed  ?  And  if  it  ever  exist- 
ed, is  it  supposable  that  men  had  no  floors  till  they  adopted  such  a 
practice  ? 

Now  it  is  very  possible,  and  perhaps  probable,  that  these  two  words 
proceeded  from  one  radix;  for  the  Latin ^oris  has  for  its  primary  sig- 
nification, the  action  o{  spreading,  the  opening  of  a  bud ;  and  the  pri- 
mary sense  oi  floor  is  that  which  is  spread,  or  extended.  Then  a 
rational  etymologist  determines  that  these  words,  if  connected  in  origin, 
unite  in  this  signification. 

From  this  ignorance  of  the  manner  in  which  men  were  led  to  form 
words,  or  what  may  be  called  the  philosophy  of  language,  have  pro- 
ceeded a  great  part  of  all  the  mistakes  which  have  brought  the  study  of 
etymology  into  disrepute. 

The  evil  of  assigning  words  to  a  wrong  origin,  is  not  confined  to  the 
department  of  etymology ;  it  has  often  led  authors,  and  none  more  fre- 


STATE    OF   ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY.  365 

quently  than  Richardson,  in  erroneous  explanations.  Thus  Richardson 
deduces  the  word  lad  from  the  Saxon  Icedan,  to  lead  ;  and  hence  infers 
that  the  primary  sense  is,  one  led  or  educated  to  manly  virtues.  This 
opinion  he  has  from  Junius.  Now  it  so  happens  that  lad  is  not  a  Saxon 
word ;  we  have  it  from  the  Welsh.  If  Junius  and  Richardson  had  be- 
come acquainted  with  the  manner  of  deriving  words  from  their  origin- 
als, they  would  never  have  adopted  such  a  conjecture.  The  words 
which  signify  lad,  child,  and  the  like,  are  usually  derived  from  the 
sense  of  production  ;  that  is,  issue ;  what  is  brought  forth. 

Baron,  Richardson  assigns  to  the  Gothic  hairgan,  which  he  renders 
to  defend,  and  hence  infers  that  the  primary  sense  is,  an  armed,  defense- 
ful,  or  powerful  man.  Here  the  author  is  inaccurate  in  rendering  the 
word  bairgan,  to  defend  ;  the  primary  sense  is  to  keep  or  save,  and  if  it 
ever  signifies  to  defend,  this  is  a  secondary  or  consequential  sense. 
The  sense  of  the  word  baron  has  not  the  least  reference  to  defense.  It 
is  from  the  root  of  the  Latin  vir,  and  this  is  from  the  same  radix  as 
vireo,  to  grow,  to  be  strong ;  vis,  viris,  force,  whence  virtus,  bravery. 
But  the  Gothic  bairgan  belongs  to  a  different  family. 

From  a  like  mistake,  the  author  assigns  to  bargain,  the  sense  of  an 
agreement,  a  contract,  confirmed,  strengthened,  ratified,  assured.  But 
these  ideas  do  not  enter  into  the  meaning  of  bargain. 

Richardson  gives  the  opinion  of  Junius,  that  the  word  auger  is  from 
the  Saxon  ecg,  Dutch  egge,  edge  ;  and  hence  infers  that  the  meaning  of 
auger  is  an  edge-tool.  But  the  word  is  fully  explained  in  the  Saxon,  in 
which  it  signifies  a  nave-tool  or  nave-borer ;  its  original  use  being  to 
bore  the  naves  of  wheels. 

Under  the  word  country,  the  author,  after  stating  the  opinions  of 
several  writers  respecting  its  origin,  adds  :  "  May  it  not  owe  its  origin 
to  the  Anglo-Saxon  cunnan,  to  bear?"  [he  should  have  written  cennan.J 
From  this  origin  he  infers  that  the  word  may  have  for  its  primary  sense, 
the  land  of  one's  father,  like  the  Latin  patria.  How  could  he  over- 
look the  Latin  conterraneu^,  and  the  Italian  contrada  7  Country  is 
land  adjacent  or  near  to  a  city. 

The  author  errs  in  another  respect.  He  brings  together  all  the 
words  of  a  family  ;  and  to  effect  a  regular,  consistent  plan  of  this  kind, 
he  ought  to  have  placed  the  word,  which  is  radical  or  primary  in  Eng- 
lish, at  the  head  of  the  family.  But  he  has  frequently  deviated  from 
this  order.  Thus  he  sets  able,  a  verb,  at  the  head  of  the  family ; 
when  the  adjective  is  the  primary  word.  Indeed  able,  a  verb,  hardly 
deserves  a  place  in  the  list.  So  he  places  author,  a  verb,  at  the  head 
of  a  family,  when  the  noun  is  the  primary  word ;  and  as  a  verb  is  not 
used  nor  well  authorized.  So  he  sets  at  the  head  of  the  family,  anchor, 
a  verb ;  augur,  a  verb ;  disease,  a  verb ;  when  the  noun  is  the  word 
from  which  the  verb  and  all  the  derived  words  proceed.  These  and 
many  similar  examples  are  all  wrong,  and  tend  to  mislead  the  learner. 

Richardson  retains  the  old  method  of  noting  the  accented  syllable, 
and  places  the  mark  of  accent,  in  all  cases,  on  the  vowel ;  a  method 
adopted  probably  at  first  from  the  Greek.  Thus  he  accents  ha'bit, 
te'nor,  which  would  naturally  lead  an  inquirer  to  pronounce  as  in  fa'vor, 
fe'ver.  This  old  rule  has  been  discarded  by  orthoepists,  for  more  than 
half  a  century.    By  placing  the  mark  of  accent  after  the  vowel  when 


366  STATE    OF    ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY. 

long,  as  above,  and  after  a  consonant,  when  the  preceding  vowel  is 
short,  thus,  hab'it,  ten'or — we  direct  the  learner  to  correct  pronuncia- 
tion. This  is  one  of  the  most  convenient  modes  of  teaching  pronun- 
ciation, and  the  more  valuable,  as  it  extends  to  a  great  proportion  of  all 
the  accented  syllables  in  the  language. 

Richardson,  in  a  preliminary  essay,  undertakes  to  explain  the  origin 
of  languages.  His  theory  is,  that  each  letter  was  the  sign  of  a  sepa- 
rate, distinct  meaning ;  being  in  fact  the  sign  of  a  word  previously 
familiar  in  speech.  It  would  be  easy  to  overthrow  this  visionary  and 
conjectural  theory ;  but  this  is  not  the  place. 

The  author  adopts  the  opinion  of  Home  Tooke,  that  the  noun  is  the 
•origin  of  all  other  words,  or  was  the  part  of  speech  first  formed.  Now 
it  is  not  possible  to  know,  in  all  cases,  which  word,  of  a  family,  the 
noun  or  the  verb,  was  first  formed ;  both  being  written  in  the  same 
manner. 

But  one  fact  is  undeniable,  that  in  all  languages  of  which  I  have  any 
knowledge,  by  far  the  greatest  part  of  nouns  are  derived  words,  and 
mostly  derived  from  known  verbs.  Motion,  action,  is,  beyond  all  con- 
troversy, the  principal  source  of  words ;  being  the  physical  object 
which  at  first  most  powerfully  impressed  the  human  mind.  But  some 
objects  may  have  received  names,  without  reference  to  action.  While 
therefore  it  can  not  be  denied  that,  in  some  instances,  a  noun  may  have 
been  the  original  word,  it  is  demonstrably  certain  that  most  nouns  are 
derived  words  ;  and  that  the  theory  of  Home  Tooke  is  erroneous. 

But  no  fault  of  Richardson's  dictionary  is  of  so  much  importance  as 
the  defect  of  precise  definitions.  This  defect  is  so  general  as  to  ren- 
der the  work,  in  a  great  degree,  useless  to  the  young  student. 

It  is  not  merely  the  want  of  discrimination  in  signification,  that 
injures  the  value  of  the  work ;  it  is  also  the  omission  of  many  impor- 
tant definitions.  Thus  under  abate,  abatement,  there  is  the  omission  of 
the  senses  of  the  word  in  law  and  in  horsemanship ;  under  account^ 
accouaiant  is  not  defined  ;  acceptance,  in  law  and  commerce,  is  omitted ; 
advance,  advances,  in  a  commercial  sense,  are  omitted. 

Some  of  the  most  common  and  useful  words  are  wholly  omitted  ;  as 
abeyance,  admiralty,  advowson,  charter-party.  And  what  is  worse  than 
all,  the  omission  of  all  the  terms  in  the  sciences,  which  modern  im- 
provements have  introduced,  is  the  omission  of  what  is  most  wanted  by 
students  at  the  present  period. 

The  Rev.  J.  Bosworth  has  published  an  octavo  dictionary  of  the  An- 
glo-Saxon language,  with  explanations  of  words  in  modern  English. 
This  seems  to  be  an  abridgment  of  Lye's  dictionary,  in  two  volumes 
folio,  in  which  the  explanations  of  words  are  in  Latin.  Bosworth's  dic- 
tionary is  a  valuable  work,  though  it  does  not  contain  the  Mceso-Gothic 
words,  which  are  in  Lye's  book,  and  the  examples  for  illustration  or  au- 
thority are  not  numerous. 

Bosworth  gives  the  etymology  of  very  few  Saxon  words ;  but  here  and 
there  he  gives  his  opinion.  One  instance  will  be  selected  for  examina- 
tion. This  is  respecting  the  origin  of  the  Saxon  sacu,  which  is  the 
modern  sake.  The  word  in  Saxon  signifies  strife,  contention,  suit  or 
cause  in  court. 


STATE    OF   ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY.  367 

Of  this  word  Bosworth  remarks,  that  its  "  derivation  has  been  a  stum- 
bling block  for  nearly  all  etymologists."  Adelung  considers  it  as  the 
intensive  of  the  German  sage^  a  saying.  Bosworth  then  mentions  other 
words  that  appear  to  be  analogous ;  ding,  in  German,  is  a  thing,  a 
court,  but  originally  altercation,  caviling.  The  Latin  causa,  he  says,  is 
derived  from  causari,  which  is  a  mistake ;  the  derivation  is  the  other 
way,  and  the  original  word  is  to  be  sought  in  the  Welsh. 

Bosworth  then  tells  us  that  the  Latin  res  belongs  to  the  root  of  the  Ger- 
man rede,  speech,  recht,  right,  raushen,  to  rush ;  all  which  is  mistake, 
and  so  are  other  remarks  which  I  omit. 

But  after  all,  the  author  has  not  even  approached  the  truth.  The 
Saxon  sacu,  English  sake,  is  from  the  same  radix  as  the  English  seeky 
Saxon  secan,  Latin  sequor,  French  essayer,  whence  essay.  The  prima- 
ry sense  of  all  these  words,  is  to  strive,  seek  (or,  follow,  make  efforts  to 
obtain.  Hence  its  application  to  causes  in  court,  and  as  sacu  is  a  suit 
in  law,  so  we  have  suit  from  the  Latin  sequor,  through  the  French ; 
both  from  one  radix. 

It  is  absolutely  astonishing  to  see  how  little  etymology  is  understood 
in  Europe. 

The  latest  English  writer  who  has  attempted  the  derivation  of  words 
is  W.  T.  Brande,  a  professor  of  chimistry,  who  has  edited  a  dictionary 
of  science,  literature  and  arts,  which  has  just  arrived  in  this  country. 

The  word  chemistry,  this  author  says,  is  probably  derived  from  the 
Coptic  root  chems  or  hhems,  obscure  or  secret.  The  German  word  ge- 
heim  is  apparently  of  the  same  origin. 

Where  this  writer  found  his  Coptic  word,  I  do  not  know  ;  but  chim- 
istry  is  derived  from  an  Arabic  verb,  signifying  to  conceal,  and  the 
word  signifies  truly  the  secret  art.  But  what  has  this  word  to  do  with 
the  German  geheim,  which  is  a  compound  of  the  common  prefix  ge  and 
heim,  home  ;  whence  heimlich,  close,  private,  secret.  Surely  the  au- 
thor can  have  very  little  knowledge  of  German,  or  he  would  not  have 
made  such  a  mistake. 

Fee,  emolument,  this  author  says,  is  derived  from  the  Anglo-Saxon 
word  signifying  money,  or  from  the  French  foi,  faith.  But  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  word  feah  signifies  cattle,  used  in  trade  instead  of  money.  How 
could  the  author  suppose  the  word  to  be  from  foi,  faith.?  How  little 
do  writers  know  of  the  principles  of  etymology,  when  they  suppose  the 
word  fee,  an  emolument,  can  have  any  connection  with  faith. 

Man,  the  author  refers  to  the  Latin  humanus  or  mens.  How  wild 
must  be  such  a  conjecture.  The  fact  is  directly  the  reverse.  Man  is 
the  original  word  from  which  humanus  is  formed,  but  it  has  certainly 
no  connection  with  mens,  mind. 

Orchard,  the  author  refers  to  the  Greek  orchatos,  a  row  of  trees. 
But  orchard  has  no  connection  with  the  Greek  ;  it  is  a  Saxon  compound 
of  ort  and  geard,  a  wort  yard,  an  inclosure  for  worts,  herbs.  The  lat- 
ter and  true  derivation  proves  that  the  word  was  not  originally  a  collec- 
tion for  trees,  but  of  herbs. 

Ordeal  this  author  derives  from  the  German  urtheil,  the  same  word 
differently  written.  He  might  as  well  have  derived  urtheil  from  ordeal., 
for  this  would  be  equally  true. 


S68  STATE    OF   ENGLISH   PHILOLOGY. 

But  the  most  remarkable  mistake  of  Brande,  is  his  spelling  of  taf' 
frail  for  faferel,  and  explaining  it  as  a  rail — "  the  uppermost  rail  of  a 
ship's  stern."  The  word  is  from  the  Dutch,  and  signifies  a  table,  or 
little  table,  from  the  Latin  tabula ;  so  called  from  its  flat  surface.  The 
author  has  taken  the  vulgar  corrupt  pronunciation,  and  from  that  made 
the  word  signify  a  rail,  when  in  truth  it  has  no  such  signification.  It 
is  probable  the  word  was  introduced  when  the  sterns  of  vessels  were 
formed  in  a  manner  somewhat  different  from  the  present  mode  ;  but  it 
never  had  any  reference  to  rail. 

Shall  we  never  be  free  from  popular  errors  and  vain  conjectures! 
When  will  men  cease  to  write  on  subjects  which  they  do  not  under- 
stand }  How  respectable  does  Brande  appear  when  he  writes  on  sci- 
ence, and  how  he  lowers  himself  when  he  leaves  his  proper  sphere ! 

Let  us  then  turn  our  attention  to  Germany,  where  we  may  find  the* 
most  profound  philological  scholars  in  Europe.     But  in  the  department 
of  etymology,  we  find  the  Germans  still  in  darkness.     Take  the  follow- 
ing examples  from  Gesenius,  in  proof  of  this  assertion. 

Gesenius,  like  the  English  lexicographers,  says,  that  the  Hebrew 
hen,  a  son,  comes  from  the  idea  of  building,  that  is,  of  begetting ;  for 
the  verb  banah  signifies  to  build,  and  sons  are  metaphorically  said  to 
huild  up  a  family.  But  it  seems  never  to  have  occurred  to  these  lexi- 
cographers that  the  offspring  of  beasts,  named  from  this  verb,  can  not 
be  said  to  build  up  a  family ;  and  what  is  more  to  the  purpose,  the 
word  beni,  sparks  of  fire,  in  Job  v,  7,  can  not  with  any  propriety  be 
deduced  from  the  sense  of  building  up.  The  truth  undoubtedly  is, 
lexicographers  have  overlooked  the  true  primary  sense,  which  is  to 
throw,  thrust,  set,  lay.  This  is  the  common  signification  of  building  ; 
that  is,  to  throw  down,  set,  lay ;  in  other  words,  to  found.  It  so  hap- 
pens, that  this  very  Hebrew  verb  is  probably  retained  in  modern  lan- 
guages, Irish  bun,  bunait,  foundation ;  Latin  fundo.  Building  up, 
erection,  is  a  secondary  or  consequential  sense.  From  the  primary 
sense  however,  the  sense  of  son,  the  young  of  beasts,  and  sparks  of 
fire  are  directly  deducible  ;  they  are  issues,  things  se7it,  thrown  or  thrust 
out.  This  is  usually  the  sense  of  children  or  offspring,  as  it  is  of 
branches  of  trees. 

Again,  the  Hebrew  bara,  to  create,  Gesenius  supposes  to  express  pri- 
marily the  sense  of  cutting,  carving,  planing,  polishing,  from  the  gene- 
ral sense  of  the  elements  Br,  to  separate.  But  the  Hebrew  word  is  the 
English  bear,  the  sense  of  which  is,  to  bring  forth  ;  and  this  is  its  sig- 
nification in  the  first  verse  in  the  Bible.  In  the  beginning  God  brought 
forth  or  produced  the  heavens  and  the  earth  ;  brought  them  into  visible 
existence,  from  things  not  seen,  as  it  is  expressed  in  Hebrews  xi,  3. 

The  Hebrew  word  barak  Gesenius  supposes  to  signify  primarily  to 
break  doion,  to  express  kneeling.  But  the  verb  signifies  to  bless,  to 
curse,  and  in  Arabic,  in  addition  to  these  meanings,  it  signifies  to  rain 
violently.  Now  these  senses  can  not  all  proceed  from  breaking  down. 
The  primary  sense  is  to  drive,  to  throw  out,  expel ;  for  this  is  the  usual 
sense  of  speaking,  in  all  its  forms.  We  have  a  familiar  example  of 
this  fact  in  the  Latin  appello,  to  call,  from  pello,  to  drive.  So  also  in 
ejaculation.  This  fact  resolves  all  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  opposite 
senses  of  the  word,  to  bless  and  to  curse ;  these  being  different  applica- 


STATE   OF   ENGLISH  PHILOLOGY.  369 

tions  of  the  same  action  ;  a  forcible  utterance  of  the  voice.  This  also 
accounts  for  the  Arabic  signification,  to  rain  violently,  which  is  a  pour' 
ing  out  from  the  clouds. 

The  Latin  language  retains  this  identical  word  in  precor.,  applied  to 
praying  and  imprecating  evil.  The  Greek  has  also  Iracho,  to  sound, 
and  brecho,  to  rain,  from  the  same  source,  and  hence  the  English,  to 
bray. 

But  a  more  important  mistake  in  the  Hebrew  lexicons  is,  to  make 
the  Hebrew  kafar  or  kofar  to  be  the  origin  of  the  English  cover,  and 
to  give  that  explanation  of  the  word  in  various  passages  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  English  word  cover  is  from  the  Latin  co-operio,  through  the 
Italian  and  French  ;  and  it  certainly  has  no  more  relation  to  the  He- 
brew word,  than  the  English  word  plate  has  to  pin-cushion. 

Under  this  Hebrew  word  is  one  which  signifies  a  village,  and  this, 
says  Gesenius,  is  from  its  covering  the  inhabitants.  This  is  a  mistake ; 
villages  do  not  cover  people  ;  the  sense  is,  detached,  separate,  distant ; 
a  remote  place  of  residence. 

From  this  verb  in  Arabic  came  the  word  Caffer,  an  inhabitant  of  the 
south  of  Africa.  How  can  this  word  be  derived  from  covering  %  The 
truth  is,  the  verb  in  all  the  Shemitic  languages,  signifies  to  remove, 
drive  away ;  hence  to  reject,  deny.  The  Coffers  in  Africa  were  so 
named  from  their  inhabiting  distant  villages,  or  more  probably  from 
their  rejection  of  the  Mohammedan  religion. 

BEFINITION. 

Many  men  of  distinguished  erudition  in  England  have  compiled  dic- 
tionaries of  our  language.  Of  these  Dr.  Johnson's  great  work  has  the 
preference,  particularly  in  the  department  of  definition. 

In  one  particular,  all  the  English  authors  of  dictionaries  have  erred ; 
this  is,  by  following  the  plan  pursued  in  translating  dictionaries,  in 
which  a  word  in  one  language  is  rendered  by  a  synonymous  word  in 
another.  This  is  proper  in  translations ;  but  in  definitions,  in  our  own 
language,  this  manner  of  executing  a  work  of  this  kind  must  be  ex- 
tremely imperfect.  To  say  that  a  disease  is  a  distemper,  a  malady,  a 
disorder ;  and  a  malady  is  a  disease,  a  distemper,  &lc.  does  not  answer 
the  purpose  of  a  dictionary  by  satisfying  the  inquirer. 

In  another  particular,  allied  indeed  to  the  foregoing,  all  the  English 
compilers  have  been  negligent ;  they  have  failed  to  note  the  differen- 
ces of  words  apparently  synonymous.  This  neglect  has  given  origui 
to  books  of  synonyms. 

All  the  English  dictionaries  are  very  defective  in  etymology.  I  have 
attempted  to  supply  this  defect  in  part,  but  much  remains  to  be  done. 

Of  imperfect  or  incorrect  definitions,  the  following  are  examples. 

Averment,  the  establishment  of  a  thing  by  evidence. — Johnson  from 
Bacon. 

An  offer  of  the  defendant  to  justify  an  exception,  and  the  act  as  well 
as  the  oflfer. — Johnson  from  Blount,  Chalmers,  (Ssc.  Jameson  of  Lincoln's 
Inn.     Qu.  is  Jameson  a  lawyer  ? 

The  first  definition  is  not  correct  according  to  present  usage,  yet  I 
have  nine  dictionaries  before  me  in  which  it  is  copied  or  abridged  in- 

47 


370  STATE    OF    ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY. 

to  "  establishment  by  evidence ;"  four  or  five  of  these  dictionaries  are 
now  used  in  schools.  The  second  definition  is  incorrect.  In  pleading, 
an  averment  is  made  by  either  party  to  a  suit. 

Amercement,  the  pecuniary  punishment  of  an  offender,  or  a  pecu- 
niary fine. — Walker,  Maunder,  Sheridan,  Jones,  Jameson.  A  fine  is 
a  pecuniary  punishment.  Then  what  is  the  difference  between  Jine 
and  amercement  7 

Escheat,  to  fall  to  the  lord  of  the  manor  by  forfeiture. — English  Dic- 
tionaries.    But  in  the  United  States  there  are  no  lords  of  manors. 

Administratrix,  she  who  administers  in  consequence  of  a  will. — 
Johnson,  Sheridan,  Walker,  Jones. 

Directly  the  reverse ;  an  administratrix  administers  when  there  is 
no  will. 

Adolescence,  the  age  succeeding  childhood,  and  succeeded  by  pu- 
berty— that  part  of  life  in  which  the  body  has  not  reached  its  full  per- 
fection.— Johnson,  Chalmers,  Walker,  Jones,  Sheridan,  Jameson,  and 
school  dictionaries. 

This  is  incorrect,  adolescence  is  the  growth  of  a  youth,  and  hence  the 
state  of  growing.     In  these  last  words  Bailey  is  more  correct. 

Effervesce,  to  generate  heat  by  intestine  motion. — Johnson,  Chalmers, 
Walker,  Jones,  Sheridan,  Ash,  Bailey,  Jameson,  Maunder,  and  school 
dictionaries. 

It  never  occurred  to  these  authors,  that  effervescence  is  the  extrication 
of  an  elastic  vapor  or  fluid. 

Efflorescence,  production  of  flowers ;  excrescences  in  the  form  of 
flowers. — Johnson,  Chalmers,  Jameson,  and  others. 

Very  incorrect  or  imperfect. 

Emigrate,  to  remove  from  one  place  to  another. 

Emigration,  change  of  habitation ;  removal  from  one  place  to  an- 
other.— Johnson,  Chalmers,  Walker,  Sheridan,  Jones,  Ash,  Maunder, 
Grimshaw,  and  school  dictionaries. 

So  then,  if  a  man  removes  from  Boston  to  Salem,  or  from  Broadway 
in  New  York  to  Pearl  Street,  he  emigrates. 

Migrate,  to  remove,  to  change  place. — Maunder.  To  remove  from 
one  place  to  another ;  to  change  residence. — Jameson. 

This  word  is  not  in  Johnson  and  most  other  dictionaries. 

Peculation,  robbery  of  the  public  ;  theft  of  public  money. — Johnson, 
Chalmers,  Walker,  Sheridan,  Jones,  Maunder,  Jameson,  Grimshaw,  and 
other  school  dictionaries. 

Peculation  is  neither  robbery  nor  theft. 

Accomplice,  a  partner,  an  associate. — Maunder. 

A  partner  in  trade  or  manufactures,  is  not  an  accomplice. 

Promise,  declaration  of  some  benefit  to  be  conferred. — Johnson, 
Chalmers,  Sheridan,  Walker,  Jones,  Jameson,  Maunder,  and  school 
dictionaries. 

A  prediction  may  be  a  declaration  of  a  benefit  to  be  conferred,  as 
well  as  a  promise. 

Ship.  A  large  hollow  building  made  to  pass  over  the  sea  with  sails. 
— Johnson,  Chalmers,  Sheridan,  Walker,  Jones,  Jameson,  and  others. 

Sloop.     A  small  ship,  commonly  with  only  two  masts. — Johnson. 

Sloop.    A  small  ship. — Walker,  Sheridan,  Jones. 


STATE    OF    ENGLISH    PHILOLOGY.  371 

Sloop.  A  small  ship^  commonly  with  only  one  mast. — Chalmers, 
Jameson. 

Brigantine,  [brig.]  A  light  vessel,  such  as  has  been  formerly  used 
by  corsairs  or  pirates. — Johnson,  Sheridan,  Walker,  Ash,  Jones.  Jame- 
son, [brigandine.] 

Now  what  is  a  ship^  a  sloop,  and  a  brig  ?  What  is  the  difference 
between  them  ? 

Water.  A  very  fluid  salt,  volatile,  and  void  of  all  savor  and  taste  ; 
and  it  seems  to  consist  of  small,  smooth,  hard,  porous,  spherical  parti- 
cles of  equal  diameters,  and  of  equal  specific  gravities,  &c. — Johnson 
from  Newton.  These  great  men  may  be  excused  for  such  a  definition 
of  water,  as  they  wrote  before  the  late  discoveries  in  regard  to  that 
fluid.  But  what  excuse  can  be  made  for  Chalmers,  [from  Todd,]  and 
even  for  Jameson,  for  giving  such  a  definition,  at  this  late  period  ? 

Water.  One  of  the  four  elements. — Walker,  Sheridan,  Jones,  Bai- 
ley, Ash,  Maunder,  and  school  dictionaries.  One  dictionary  has  it,  a 
fluid.     True,  and  so  is  blood  a  fluid  ;  and  milk  is  a  fluid. 

Cross-examine.  To  examine  witnesses  by  putting  to  them  unex- 
pected questions. — Maunder. 

Cross-examination.  The  act  of  examining  by  questions  apparently 
captious  ;  the  faith  of  evidence  in  a  court  of  justice. — Maunder. 

I  can  not  conceive  where  this  compiler  found,  or  how  he  could 
invent,  such  mistakes.  "■ 

Cui  bono  7  cui  malo  7  To  what  good,  to  what  evil  will  it  tend  .? — 
Maunder,  Treasury  of  Knowledge. 

Cui  bono  7  To  what  end  or  purpose  ?  To  what  good  will  it  tend  ? 
— Usage.     (See  Biblical  Repository,  Vol.  I,  p.  150  and  771.) 

This  is  not  all ;  the  phrase  in  this  sense  has  become  proverbial.  But 
the  sense  of  the  words,  among  the  Latins,  was  different.  The  true 
phrase  is,  "  cui  est  bono,"  to  whom  is  it  for  good,  for  whose  benefit 
is  it.  Cui  is  not  an  adjective  agreeing  with  bono ;  but  the  phrase  con- 
sists of  two  datives. 

That  errors  may  escape  the  best  scholars,  even  when  using  the 
utmost  care  and  diligence,  is  certain  ;  and  knowing  by  experience  how 
difficult  it  is  to  avoid  mistakes,  I  would  not  severely  censure  the  mis- 
takes of  other  authors  and  compilers.  But  I  would  rebuke  the  negli- 
gence which  copies  such  errors  without  examination,  and  continues  to 
republish  them  age  after  age.  Still  more  would  I  rebuke  the  arrogance 
of  men  who  write  or  compile  books  on  subjects  of  which  they  have  a 
very  superficial  knowledge  ;  relying  for  truth'  and  facts  not  on  their 
own  resources,  but  almost  wholly  on  the  authority  of  other  men. 

INDUCTIVE     GEAMMAK. 

Of  all  the  singular  schemes  for  teaching  the  English  language,  which 
modern  sciolists  have  invented,  that  of  teaching  grammar  by  induction 
and  production,  is  perhaps  the  most  extraordinary. 

Induction  signifies  the  act  or  process  of  deducing  consequences  from 
premises,  principles,  or  propositions,  admitted  or  proved  to  be  true. 
But  in  the  grammar  of  a  language  there  are  no  premises  which  re- 
quire certain  consequences,  or  from  which  particular  inferences  are 


372  STATE  OF  ENGLISH  PHILOLOGY. 

necessarily  deducible.  The  formation  of  words  and  the  application  of 
them  to  the  expression  of  ideas  are  arbitrary  ;  and  of  course  the  pro- 
priety of  them  depends  wholly  on  usage. 

James  is  a  good  boy.  Ask  the  question,  Why  must  is  be  used  here, 
instead  of  am  7  The  only  answer  is,  because  it  is  the  established 
usage.  James  are  a  good  boy.  Why  is  this  sentence  not  good  Eng- 
lish ?     Because  it  is  not  the  usage. 

The  common  practice  in  English  is  to  form  words  in  the  plural  num- 
ber by  adding  s  or  es.  Why  is  this  correct  ?  Because  it  is  the  usage. 
But  some  nouns  are  deviations  from  this  form ;  as  men,  oxen.  Why 
are  these  plurals  good  English  }  Because  it  is  the  usage.  But  had 
these  words  been  subject  to  the  principle  of  induction,  and  the  general 
usage  been  the  premise,  then  the  plural  of  these  words  would  have 
been  mans,  oxes. 

The  preterit  tense  of  most  English  verbs  ends  in  ed ;  as  in  moved, 
from  7nove.  If  this  rule  were  the  premise,  and  other  verbs  were  to  be 
formed  by  induction,  then  the  preterit  of  write  would  be  writed.  But 
writed  is  not  the  preterit ;  it  is  not  good  English,  for  it  is  not  the  usage. 

He  strikes  John,  and  John  strikes  him.  Why  must  he  precede  strikes 
in  the  first  clause  ?  Because  it  is  the  usage.  Why  must  him  follow 
strikes  in  the  second  clause  ?  Because  it  is  the  usage.  These  usages 
are  arbitrary;  and  when  the  language  was  formed,  it  would  have  been 
just  as  proper  to  make  Jii?n  the  nominative,  and  he  the  objective  case 
or  word,  as  the  reverse. 

The  scheme  of  induction  and  production  in  grammar  is  founded 
on  mistake  ;  for  neither  one  or  the  other  has  any  thing  to  do  in  the 
construction  of  language.  Common  practice  or  usage  constitutes  a 
general  rule,  and  it  is  convenient  that  this  rule  should  embrace  all  like 
cjises,  or  be  as  extensive  as  possible.  But  in  adjusting  words  to  such 
a  rule,  there  is  no  induction  ;  for  induction  would  render  a  conformity 
to  the  rule  necessary  in  every  case.  Yet  there  is  no  such  conformity, 
nor  any  occasion  for  it  in  the  language. 

Hence  it  follows  that  the  proper  mode  of  teaching  grammar  is  the 
common  mode  ;  to  define  or  describe  the  several  classes  of  words  ;  then 
state  the  general  usage,  as  the  rule  of  construction,  and  illustrate  this 
by  various  examples ;  and  at  last,  specify  the  deviations  from  the  com- 
mon usage,  as  exceptions  to  the  rule. 

CONCLUSION. 

Such  is  the  miserable  state  of  English  philology ;  such  was  the  lan- 
guage in  which  I  was  instructed ;  and  such,  in  a  great  measure,  is  the 
language  in  which  children  are  now  instructed.  And  why  is  it  such  i 
Read  what  Bishop  Lowth  writes  on  the  subject.  "  A  grammatical  study 
of  our  own  language  makes  no  part  of  the  ordinary  method  of  instruc- 
tion, which  we  pass  through  in  our  childhood ;  and  it  is  very  seldom 
we  apply  ourselves  to  it  afterward.  Yet  the  want  of  it  will  not  be 
effectually  supplied  by  any  other  advantages  whatever.  Much  practice 
in  the  polite  world,  and  a  general  acquaintance  with  the  best  authors, 
are  good  helps ;  but  alone  will  hardly  be  sufficient.  We  have  writers, 
who  have  enjoyed  these  advantages  in  their  full  extent,  and  yet  can  not 


STATE   OF   ENGLISH  PHILOLOGY.  373 

be  recommended  as  models  of  an  accurate  style.  Much  less  then  will 
what  is  commonly  called  learning  serve  the  purpose  ;  that  is,  a  critical 
knowledge  of  the  ancient  languages,  and  much  reading  of  ancient  au- 
thors. The  greatest  critic  and  most  able  grammarian  of  the  last  age, 
when  he  came  to  apply  his  learning  and  his  criticism  to  an  English 
author,  was  frequently  at  a  loss  in  matters  of  ordinary  use  and  com- 
mon construction  in  his  own  vernacular  idiom." — (Preface  to  Lowth's 
Grammar.) 

These  remarks  are  applicable  to  the  grammatical  construction  ;  but 
similar  remarks  may  be  applied  to  other  departments  of  philology. 
The  English  language  has  not  been  fully  investigated  ;  instruction  in 
its  forms  and  principles  has  been  left  to  the  inferior  schools  ;  even  the 
elements  of  the  language  have  not  been  understood  and  explained. 
Particular  authors  have  occasionally  made  corrections  in  the  orthogra- 
phy and  accentuation  of  words ;  but  much  of  the  character  of  the  lan- 
guage has  been  formed  by  popular  usage,  and  subjected  to  ignorance 
and  caprice,  rather  than  to  rules  and  system.  Most  of  the  compilers  of 
elementary  books  in  England,  as  well  as  in  this  country,  have  been  very 
superficially  acquainted  with  their  subjects,  and  all  their  works  which  I 
have  seen  are  incorrect. 

In  etymology,  if  we  except  the  derivation  of  words  from  the  Greek 
and  Latin,  or  from  more  modern  languages,  there  is  scarcely  a  respect- 
able work  which  has  come  under  my  observation.  In  this  department 
of  philology,  I  have  pursued  a  new  course  and  explored  a  wide  field  ; 
the  results  are  very  interesting ;  but  I  began  the  study  late  in  life,  with 
few  books ;  I  had  no  model  to  follow,  no  guide  to  direct  me,  and  no 
assistance.  My  researches  therefore  must  be  imperfect,  and  much  is 
left  for  future  investigation. 

In  my  edition  of  the  Bible  and  in  books  of  my  own  composition,  I 
have  rejected  words,  which,  by  ill  formation  or  wrong  spelling,  express 
nonsense  or  a  perverted  sense  ;  anomalous  and  incorrect  orthography 
has  been  rectified,  and  the  more  prominent  errors  in  grammatical  con- 
struction have  been  corrected. 

If  the  English  nation,  one  of  the^rsf  in  promoting  science,  has  been 
the  last  to  improve  their  native  language,  let  their  descendants  in  Amer- 
ica supply  the  defect.  This  language  is  probably  destined  to  be  as  ex- 
tensively used  as  any  on  the  globe,  and  to  be  one  of  the  instruments  of 
evangelizing  the  heathen  world  ;  it  is  my  earnest  desire  therefore  that 
the  language  may  be  purified,  improved  and  rendered  an  ornament  to 
our  literature. 

Whether  this  desire  is  ever  to  be  gratified  ;  whether  my  corrections 
are  to  be  respected  and  introduced  into  use,  or  whether  they  are  to  be 
condemned  and  treated  with  neglect,  is  a  question  yet  to  be  decided. 
If  the  literary  portion  of  the  English  and  American  nations  treat  this 
subject  with  indifference,  and  suffer  the  language  to  descend  to  posterity 
with  all  its  deformities,  it  will  be  in  vain  for  me  or  any  other  individual 
to  attempt  a  reformation.  But  my  own  books  have  been  rendered  as 
correct  as  my  present  knowledge  enables  me  to  make  them  ;  it  having 
been  my  determination  that  they  shall  not  be  disfigured  with  the  obvious 
mistakes  and  improprieties  of  common  usage.  There  is  a  dignity  in 
truth  and  correctness  which  always  deserves  respect,  and  which  seldom 
fails  to  conciliate  approbation  and  favor. 


\m.       ^      ,.     >  jk 


ir 


>*■ 

MN 


University  of  Califomia 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

was  borrowed. 


REdTuJ^K 


QLAPRl?  iili& 
NAft07igsi 


^Pffl  J 


m 


VOSAHC 


*^f  jAN^om 


! 


^    i 


/Aa3MNf 


^^lllBRM 


^OFCAIIFOP^ 


%\mys\^    ^aiMNrt^wv^ 


'^OAavaaiH^ 


aWMinivers/,^ 

s 


•^^ 


^lOSANCElfJ-;^ 

o 


CO  ..         .^ 


3WV 


)% 


? 


VJ^ 


%a3MN(13VN^ 


<\lUBRARY6k 


">&Aavaflin^ 


AWtUNlVERS/^ 


^. 


o 


VP-mnvlWCm^ 


o 

?3 


'^Aa3;MN0  3UV 


'^.{/OJIIVOJO^ 


^<!/0JnV3J0>' 


9528/j 


<r7ijONvsoi^ 


o 


^vWSANCElfXy- 


^OFCAIIFO/?^ 


^OFCAIIFO/?^ 


^WEUNIVERJ/A 


■^/^ajAiNH  3W^       ^6?Aavii8n-^^     ^<?Aavaaiv^^        ^TiijoNV-soi^ 


W^ILIBRARYO^ 


^<!/0JnV3J0^ 


\WE1)NIVER% 


o 


^vWSANCElfx^ 


<^IIIBRARYQ^, 


^<!/0JnV3J0'>^ 


^^OFCAIIFO/?^ 


^     ^ 


^Advaaii-^^ 


AMEUNIVERS/a 


^vWSANCElfjv. 

o 


^TilJONVSm^ 


"^/^ajAiNn-awv 


^OFCALIFOI?^ 


^CAavaan-i^'^ 


'/A 


o 
HONVSOl^ 


s^lOSANCElfj> 


%a3AiNn-3WV 


^HIBRARYQ^^       ^llIBRARY6k, 


%jnv3J0>'     '%ojnv3jo>' 


^WEUNIVERJ/A 


o 


o 


^vWSANCElfj> 


^OFCALIF0/?4^       ^OFCAIIFO/?^ 


^irtEUNIVERS/A 


"^AaiAiNOJWV^       ^<?AHvaaii-^^    "^(^AavjiaiTi^-        "<riiJONVsoi^ 


,^       ^^^IIIBRARYO/;^ 


^WEUNIVER%        >>clOSANCEl% 


^lUBRARYO^ 

S  1  Ir^  ^ 


